The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Salamander, n. A newt-like amphibian born from fire, whose existence proves that Chazal knew more than modern scientists about the natural world.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I'm going to jump out the window."

-D²

From The Devil's Dictionary

Bounty, n. The liberality of one who has much, in permitting one who has nothing to get all that he can.

A single swallow, it is said, devours ten millions of insects every year. The supplying of these insects I take to be a signal instance of the Creator's bounty in providing for the lives of His creatures.
-Henry Ward Beecher

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Gun, n. According to the National Rifle Association, an important catalyst in the development of good manners. The higher rate of gun ownership in the United States than in Canada accounts for Americans' international reputation for being politer than Canadians.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Nineteen, n. & adj. The age at which Ontarians become mature and responsible enough to smoke, gamble and get drunk.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Cancer, n. A disease the risk of which is increased and decreased by every food and activity known to mankind.

Ephraim Stulberg on Vayeishev, 5764

A few weeks ago, I concluded the e-mail by noting that while in P’ Vayeira, Eliezer is referred to as a “na’ar”, a lad, in P’ Chayei Sarah he was called “z’kan beiso”, the elder of Avraham’s household. This week I want to come back to that topic, and deal once and for all with the issue of what exactly is a “na’ar”.

Bereishis Rabbah (84:7), at the beginning of this week’s reading, asks the following question: the Torah says that Yosef was 17 years old at the time of the dreams, and yet in the very same verse he is called a “na’ar”? The midrash therefore explains that the Torah is telling us that Yosef was a “na’ar” in pure chronological terms, having already reached the age of majority, he was still acting immaturely, fashionably styling his hair like a vain “na’ar”, or “lad”. The implication here seems to be quite clear, that the usual age of “na’arus” does not extend up to 17. As R’ Zeev Wolf Einhorn observes in his notes on the midrash, in last week’s parasha we find that Shimon and Levi are already called “ish” (i.e. “man”) at the age of 13: thus the midrash here assumes that even 13 is already too old to be called a“lad”. Similarly, R’ Eliahu Mizrahi (the “Re’em”) suggests that just as the word “na’ara” refers to a girl who is between the ages of 12 and 12 ½, so too a boy is a “na’ar” from the ages of 13 to 13 ½, or the first half year after he reaches legal adult status as far as most laws are concerned, which is known as becoming a Bar Mitzvah.

The problem with these approaches is that they seem to have little support in rabbinic literature. There are two places in which Chaza”l discuss who is called a “na’ar”. In Kiddushin 30a, there is an argument between R’ Yehuda and R’ Nechemiah regarding the verse in Mishlei (22:6) of “Train the lad (“na’ar”) according to his path, etc.”: one says this refers to the ages of 16- 22, while the other says 18-24. The Yalkut on the verse in Mishlei (1:4) “To the lad (“na’ar”): knowledge and thought”, cites an argument regarding the age at which one stops being a “na’ar”: R’ Meir says until age 25, R’ Akiva says until 30, and R’ Yishmael says until 20. Obviously, all these sources say that far from being too old to be called a “na’ar”, Yosef was of precisely the correct age according to most opinions, and too young according to one.

Furthermore, as Mizrahi notes, the term ‘na’ar’ is used to describe people of a wide range of ages. We find that Moshe was referred to as “na’ar” (Sh’mos 2:6) even though he was still a small baby (see Sotah 12b, where this terminology causes Chaza’l problems: they say that his mother made him a “chupas ne’urim”, or that his voice was already that of a “na’ar”), while Yitzhak is called “na’ar” (Bereishis 22:5) when he was in his mid thirties, according to some, and Yehoshua was 57 when he was called a “na’ar” (Sh’mos 33:11). Sh’muel also seems to have been quite young when he was called a “na’ar” (Sh’muel 1, 1:22), and there are countless other examples. (See Bereishis Rabbah 34:10, which seems to imply that a newborn is not considered a “na’ar”. But this interpretation of the midrash can be disputed).

It is for this reason that Ramban writes (Shemos 2:6) that the word “na’ar” can be used in the Torah to describe someone of pretty much any age, from a small baby to a mature man, though, as Mizrahi notes, it does have a connotation of servility, especially when used to describe older men, as with Yehoshua, as noted above, and likewise by Eliezer. So why then does the midrash have a problem with the Torah’s reference to Yosef as “na’ar”? Mizrahi suggests that the only reason Chaza’l made the d’rasha concerning Yosef’s childish vanity in this week’s parasha was from the superfluity of the phrase “and he was a lad”: the verse had just told us that he was 17 years old, so obviously he was a “na’ar”. Therefore Chaza’l interpreted the verse as telling us, by placing a double emphasis on Yosef’s youth, that he was really a spoiled young man. Likewise, I would add, the d’rasha in Sotah 12 bconcerning Moshe is only made due to the fact that the word “na’ar” is redundant: the verse says that “she opened it [the box] and she saw him, the boy (“ha’yeled”), and behold a lad (“na’ar”) was crying”, when it could have said simply “and behold he was crying”. While “yeled” and “na’ar” can be used interchangeably, as Ramban notes – Yishmael is called a “yeled” though he was in his mid-twenties, see Bereishis Rabbah 53:13 – “yeled” is generally used to connote someone younger than a “na’ar”; therefore, when the two words are used consecutively in the verse, we say that “na’ar” implies that in some way Moshe was older than his years would suggest.

As an aside, the word “na’ara” is also used to describe girls other than those between the ages of 12 and 12 ½: Rivka is referred to as such when she first met with Eliezer although she was only three. Likewise, while the term “ish”, as we noted above in reference to Shimon and Levi, is used for people as young as 13 (see Sanhedrin 69b), the Yalkut says that one does not become an “ish” until age 25 (Shemos, remez 167. See Zayis Ra’anan, ad loc.).

As for the suggestion of Mizrahi that a “na’ar” usually means someone from 13 to 13 ½, this is a purely theoretical proposition, as, unlike the case with “na’ara”, there are no halachic verses that use such a term.

Ephraim Stulberg on Vayeishev, 5765

Note: Last year's dvar torah (Ephraim didn't just have another kid.)

This email is dedicated to my wonderful wife Orly, and our new baby girl, born on Wednesday night, whose naming rights have yet to be sold. Mazal Tov.

Mazal Tov indeed. But what does this mean, really? Doesn't the gemara conclude that "there is no Mazal for Israel" (Shabbos 156a), i.e. that the fortunes of the Jews are not subject to such things as the timing of their births, or the alignment of the stars? Even if we do believe in some notion of Mazal, what exactly is it? First thing's first: let's have a definition. I have heard it suggested that Mazal means "constellation", and that therefore Mazal, i.e. one's fortunes, depend upon the location of the Earth in the Zodiac at a specific time. "What's your sign?" becomes not just a cheesy pickup line, but a matter of some importance.

This is utter nonsense.

The word "Mazal" itself occurs only once in Scripture, and clearly refers to some sort of luminous heavenly bodies that were worshipped by priests (see M'lachim II 23:5). Were they necessarily stars? The gemara (Shabbos 156a) seems to suggest that Mazal has to do with the planets, and their movements through the sky. Thus Rav derives the fact that "there is no Mazal for Israel" from the statement that God "took Avraham outside", showing that he was above the whims of Mazal: "What did you think? That Mercury is in the West? I'll move it, and place it in the East." Mazal refers to more than the Zodiac.

The day of the week is important in determining Mazal, according to R' Yehoshua ben Levi, while R' Chanina stresses the importance of the hour of the day (Shabbos 156a). (We may assume that this is also the opinion of his son,who also stressed the relevance of Mazal (Nedarim 39b).) The Hebrew date seems also to be of significance in Mazal-matters (see Ta'anis 29b, and Yeshaya 47:13). The non-Jewish, solar date also ought to be important, though I know of no source for this (though perhaps one might cite Rosh Hashana 11b).

Thus Mazal means that the day or hour in which one was born predetermines certain subsequent elements of one's life (e.g. children, lifespan, and prosperity (Mo'ed Katan 28b).) It determines his "heavenly officer" who dictates the basic outcome of his life. "There is no blade of grass that does not have a Mazal in the heavens to strike it and make it grow." How sensitive this "officer" is to the status of his charge depends. Thus the Mazal of a person will allow him to overcome an illness with the aid of an amulet, whereas that of an animal will not (Shabbos 53b).

Don't we say that "there is no Mazal for Israel"? This question has bothered many sages over the years. Most (e.g. Rashi, Tosafos on Shabbos 156a, Ibn Ezra on Sh'mos 33:21) suggest that this means simply that meritorious acts will overcome Mazal. Mazal is more pre-inclination than predestination. However, according to many Rishonim, there is a biblical prohibition against putting too much stock into Mazal. For a summary of their postions, see the book "Hadek Heiteiv" by Rabbi S.Z. Reich.

And so our conclusion seems to be that there is some justification in wishing someone Mazal Tov, now that we have some idea as to what the phrase means. But such expressions should probably be the extent of our concern with the subject. It exists, but plays a relatively minor role in Jewish theology; or at least it ought to.

But before I finish accepting any more so traditionally-phrased congratulations, it is worth asking one final question: Do women have Mazal? In P' Vayeishev (finally, the connection to this week's parasha!), Rashi cites the Midrash Rabbah (Bereishis Rabbah 85:2) that says that the wife of Potifar went after Yosef because she saw in her horoscope that either she or her daughter was destined to have children from him. And she was correct in her prediction, given its vagueness. Rabbi Akiva's daughter was saved from her negative Mazal only through her charity (Shabbos 156b).

Elsewhere, we see that a woman's Mazal continues to operate only until she enters the domain of her husband (K'subos 2a). Tosafos (Sotah 2a) seem to suggest that a woman has no Mazal when she is born, while a boy does. Thus in this male-dominated world, it is "the daughter of so-and-so" who is destined to "so-and-so" from the time of the latter's birth. This also seems to be Rashi's understanding of the gemara's statement that a woman is called "n'keiva" because "n'kiya ba'a", she comes clean of any predetermining factors (Niddah 31b, as explained by Maharsha). In sum, women seem to have some sort of Mazal, but it remains latent, rather than active, for much of their lives.

Qu

"A very short one."

-Jeanne Calment, the oldest known living person (120; in 1995), on what sort of future she anticipated

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Medic, adj. Of or containing the element medium in its higher valence state.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Convict, n. A criminal not defended by a Jewish lawyer.

Calendar Configurations for Chanukka

I can't figure out if this was posted properly the first time (about an hour ago) so here it is again:

Inyana deyoma... Here's some work I did this week, showing the various ways Chanukka can occur in the Jewish calendar, as well as many different Chanukka-related events and their frequencies.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm
Enjoy!

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Bonsai, n. A method popular in Japan of artificially dwarfing trees and shrubs so they will fit inside Japanese cars.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Quarterback, n. The white guy.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Merry, adj. Season's.

Christmas, n. Greetings.

Calendar Configurations for Chanukka

Inyana deyoma... Here's some work I did this week, showing the various ways Chanukka can occur in the Jewish calendar, as well as many different Chanukka-related events and their frequencies.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm
Enjoy!

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Sycophant, n. An obscene pachyderm.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Bagel, n. A chewy, ring-shaped bread roll that is simmered before baking. In Toronto, its shape is mistaken for a representation of the amount of flavour it ought to have.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Swing, n. Baseball. A batter's gamble that he will hit rather than strike.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

South Africa, n. A country occupying the southernmost part of the continent of Africa; ethnically, it is 13.6% white, 8.6% of mixed origin, and 75.2% African-American.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Idiocy, n. That gift of Nature with which mankind is most generously endowed.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Peacetime, n. A span of years or decades during which the modern Western chivalric code requires that powerful democracies preach pacifism, demilitarization and international cooperation and allow their sworn enemies to arm and fortify themselves, to make it a fair fight.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"He makes cholent out of it."

-RBP, re. someone's reading a lot into a statement

From The Devil's Dictionary

Boundary, n. In political geography, an imaginary line between two nations, separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of the other.

Ephraim Stulberg on Mikeitz, 5766

This week’s email will be grammatical in nature, and I will make no apologies. But I hope I’ll make things clear enough, and that even the uninitiated will be able to understand.

There is such a thing as a “hay ha-t’mihah”, where the letter “hay” is placed at the beginning of a word to denote a passage of interrogative exclamation. This type of “hay”, which will typically have a “chataf patach” under it, occurs many times in the Torah, and Rashi points it out in several places. For instance, in this week’s parasha, Pharaoh exclaims: “Ha-nimtza cha-zeh ish asher ru’ach elokim bo” (41:38). “Is there another man like this one, who has the spirit of God in him,” he exclaims. This is what is known as a rhetorical question, and is not expected to elicit any response.

The letter “hay” can also be used at the beginning of a word to denote a simple question. When Eliezer asks Avraham if it might be okay for Yitzchak to be brought to Charan, should the women there not agree to move to Canaan, he says: “He-hashev ashiv es bincha…” (24:5), to which Avraham says: “No!” This “hay”, if I’m not mistaken, always takes on the same appearance as the “hay ha-t’mihah” – in this case it is vowelised with a “segol” because of the guttural “kamatz” next to it – only the connotation is more interrogative than exclamatory. (This distinction is made in Gur Aryeh on B’reishis 3:11.)

Now that you know all this, I’ll get to my point. After Yosef pretends to suspect his brothers, he tells them to go back to Canaan and fetch Binyamin. He tells them: “Send one of yourselves, and he will take your brother, and you will remain here; and your words will be tested, whether the truth is with you; and if not, then, by the life of Pharaoh, you are spies” (42: 16). Regarding the expression “whether the truth is with you” (“ha-emes it’chem”), Rashi notes: “ ‘Ha-emes it’chem’: IF the truth is with you. Therefore the “hay” has a “patach”, because it is like an exclamation (“l’shon t’mihah”).”

Mizrachi explains that the prefix cannot be a “hay ha-y’dia”, a definite article (i.e. “the”), for that would imply that Yosef was saying “We’ll see that indeed the truth is with you,” when clearly the whole point of the charade was to make the brothers think that he suspected them. The “hay” must mean “if”, or “whether”, and since we find nowhere that a “hay” can mean “if”, Rashi writes that it is kind of like a “hay ha-t’mihah”, which also has interrogative properties, though purely of a rhetorical nature.

My question is simply this: Is Rashi saying that there is really only one type of “hay”, and that the interrogative “hay” is a derivative of the exclamatory “hay”? This seems to be the suggestion of Mizrachi. But then the question becomes, why does this have to be so? What prevents us from saying that the interrogative “hay” is a separate species, rather than a subsidiary of the “hay ha-t’mihah”?

The alternative, it seems to me, is to say that Rashi is telling us that this “hay” contains an element of rhetoric. It is not an unbiased question, but rather implies a lack of trust on his part. It is almost like a “hay ha-t’mihah”, where the answer is implicit in the question. “We’ll see if you’re telling the truth, indeed!”

I’m really not much of an authority on grammar (I think that’s a nice way to put it) and I’d appreciate the input of anyone who is.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Hydrant, n. A local access point of flame-retardant liquid supplied by dogs.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Free verse, n. Irregular
or

unrhymed verse in which

the traditional

rules

of prosody are

disregarded.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Wig, n. A device worn by eighteenth-century nobility to protect their heads from view and use.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Fraternité, n. French. Last of the three guiding principles of the French Revolution. It translates roughly as "death by the guillotine."

Honourary QUOTI OF THE DAY

"hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"

-hevnsangel19

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Rhombus, n. An inoffensive geometric shape which languishes in obscurity along with the hectometre and the word "penultimate."

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Bohemian, n. A self-styled intellectual, usually young and upper-middle-class, who expresses his individuality by copying other Bohemians.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Criteria, n. A principle or standard that a thing are judged by.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"It's not fair. This wasn't in the book. We never learned this."

-GS, upon seeing each of SG's tests

From The Devil's Dictionary

Bondsman, n. A fool who, having property of his own, undertakes to become responsible for that entrusted by another to a third.

‎‎ Philippe of Orleans wishing to appoint one of his favorites, a dissolute nobleman, to a high office, asked him what security he would be able to give. "I need no bondsmen," he replied, "for I can give you my word of honor." "And pray what may be the value of that?" inquired the amused Regent. "Monsieur, it is worth its weight in gold."

Ephraim Stulberg on Mikeitz, 5764

This week’s e-mail is about me. In P’ Mikeitz, we are informed of the birth of the two sons of Yosef, Menashe and Ephraim, and it is the second of these two names which I wish to address. Specifically, some of you may have noticed that by many people my name is pronounced EFF-ram, or EFF-rum, and indeed, it is far from unusual for people to give me letters or wedding invitations addressed to Efram Stulberg. The question is, where did this custom arise?

There is a very interesting letter written by R’ Shrira Gaon, in which he seems to cite precedent for such a pronunciation. Responding to several queries regarding the names of tannaim and ammoraim that appear in the Talmud, he writes that many names which seem strange to us are the result of a contraction of the word “rabbi” with the person’s name. Thus the ammora Rabbah is really R’ Abba, likewise with Rava (I’m not sure where this whole business of pronouncing it Rava, as opposed to Rabba, began, but it seems from this letter of R’ Shrira to be baseless). He goes on to explain other names in this fashion (Ravina, Ravin, Rami bar Chama), and then goes on to say that the name Raphram, as in “Raphram bar Papa”, is actually a contraction of R’ Efram, or perhaps R’ Afram. Thus we see that the custom of pronouncing the name “Ephraim” as Efram, or Afram, is quite old.

Where does it come from? Why should such a pronunciation exist? Let us examine the reason the Torah gives for Yosef’s selection of such a name: “for Hashem made me numerous in the land of my suffering” (Bereishis 41:52). One is immediately struck by the looseness of the resemblance between the reason and the name. Where does the “aleph” come in, and why the pluralized suffix of “yud-mem”?

The lack of correspondence between a name and its given reason is, of course, by no means limited to this instance. The gemara (Berachos 7b) gives a different reason for the selection of the name Reuven for Leah’s eldest son than that given in the Torah, since the Torah’s explanation doesn’t correspond to the actual name too well. Bereishis Rabbah (71:3), according to the amendation of Rashash, explains that the Twelve Tribes were named as they were in spite of the dissonance between the stated reason for the name and the name itself, because these names had already been in existence previously, and they most closely approximated the message that their parents wished to express. (It is perhaps in this light that we can view the naming of the prophet Sh’muel in Sh’muel 1 1:20, which seems to bear little relation to the reason given (for I asked for him from Hashem). We find that Sh’muel was already a name that had existed previously – see Bemidbar 34:20). So what about Ephraim?

The Daas Zekeinim explain that Ephraim is a reference to the ashes (“eifer”) of Avraham and Yitzhak. Avraham had said “and I am ashes and dust”, while Yitzhak had almost been burnt as an Olah sacrifice. “Ephraim” refers to these two sets of ashes; hence the pluralized suffix. This also explains the aleph at the beginning of the word.

The word Efram refers not simply to “ashes”; it refers to “their ashes”. As the Jews moved further away from the direct memories of the Patriarchs, they felt an increasing need to refer more specifically back to their forefathers. Due to our sins, there have been more burnings and sacrifices than we might have preferred, though they have been generally in a spirit of Divine retribution rather than of the sort of noble self-negation embodied by Avraham and Yitzhak. Thus the name has gradually shifted in its pronunciation, and is commonly rendered as Efram.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Hand, n. An especially profitable investment in which a bird yields double what is typically returned by a matured nest egg.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Bourgeoisie, n. Those wealthier or more intellectually prestigious than I of whom I am jealous or with whom I disagree.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Land on one's own two feet. American. Emerge unharmed from a difficult situation. The equivalent Canadian expression is land on either of one's feet.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Memorandas, pl. of memorandums.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Undemocratic, adj. Incompatible with the principle that political power resides in the people; hence, more specifically, in conflict with any or all of the values I personally hold.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Ordinary Canadian, n. Someone who shares my opinion. Though many politicians, elitists and special-interest groups disagree, ordinary Canadians define the term my way.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Garbage can, n. A New York subway station.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Owe, v.i. & t. Be unable to evade payment (of).

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Mahmoud Abbas, n. A snowball in a handbasket crossing the Styx.

Quote

"Well, for one thing, I find that I no longer win every golf game I play."

-George H.W. Bush, on life after the presidency

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

School uniform, n. A form of brainwashing with which a school represses a student's individuality by preventing him from voluntarily copying the dress of his classmates.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Homosexuality, n. A tendency which scholarly research has shown prevalent among 10% of modern society and 95% of historical and fictional personages since time immemorial.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Puritan, n. Seventeenth-century Haredi.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Italics, n. A style of print developed in Italy, in the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Beowulf, n. A piece of junk celebrated by academics in the field of English literature since 1936, when Professor Tolkien wrote a 56-page essay explaining that it was not a piece of junk.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Modern, adj. Arts. Of or pertaining to an era that ended approximately four decades ago.

Post-modern, adj. Arts. Modern.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Taste, n. A human artistic faculty whose influence scholars agree reached its zenith in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, declining sharply ever since. Objectively defined good taste, studied by intellectuals in arts colleges worldwide, goes, sadly, unrecognized today by tens of thousands of artists and hundreds of millions of art consumers.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Hell¹, n. Chiefly yeshivish. Where you go after living in Teaneck.

Hell², n. Chiefly modern orthodox. Brooklyn.

From The Devil's Dictionary

Birth, n. The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Ætna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Nooooou."

-MH, forcefully, with alarmed expression on face

Reagan

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' "

-Ronald Reagan

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Spine, n. A recessive trait common among Southern Baptists, occasional among Roman Catholics and unknown amongst Anglicans.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Heaven, n. Chicagoan. Ken's Diner.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

World, n. New York.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

New York¹, n. The world.

New York², n. Lower Manhattan.

Quote

"You lived to tell the tale, did you?"

-Prince Charles, to a well-wisher who told him she had met his estranged wife, Diana*

* exchange took place before Diana's death

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Fashion, n. An ingenious system whereby individuals are persuaded to pay large sums of money in order to publicly identify themselves as having an affinity for inglorious wastes of time and funds.

From The Devil's Dictionary

Bigot, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Is it true that 'Perrier' is 'naive' spelled backwards?"

-MF the Elder

gaby, EMAIL ME, IT'S MIDNIGHT, LETS GO OUT, LATER

Frost

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

-Robert Frost

From The Devil's Dictionary

Bigamy, n. A mistake in taste for which the wisdom of the future will adjudge a punishment called trigamy.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"You threw a wrinkle, so it's a good thing you're using iron to smooth it out."

-AB the Π, to SG, re. latter's complication of chemistry problem

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Staff psychologist, n. A professional whose primary mandate is to convince you that your best interests always coincide with those of his employer.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Masses, n. pl. The opiate of the religion.
-The Pope

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Literally¹, adv. Archaic. Literally literally, as in, "He was literally in tears at her funeral."

Literally², adv. Modern. Literally figuratively, as in, "I literally died laughing."

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Phd, n. abbv. (Philosophiae Doctor - Latin). Among academics, a highly addictive drug which acts primarily on the pulmonary apparatus, catalysing the production of large quantities of hot air which in turn increases the relative altitude of the entire respiratory system, especially the nose.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Opiate, n. The religion of the masses.
-Sherlock Holmes

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Always, adv. When convenient.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Bono, adj. From the Latin pro bono, "for free;" hence, gratuitous, worthless.

Christmas Trivia

Q: What's Santa Claus's nationality?
A: North Polish.

-DJ on 1310 AM Ottawa

Ephraim Stulberg: The Obligatory Hanukka Party, 5766

This essay proposes to examine the halakhic status of Hanukka parties. I don’t mean the parties that are held one or two weeks in advance of the holiday: those clearly have no mitzvah status, and are optional at best. But what of parties held on Hanukka itself, in celebration of the great victory achieved by the Hasmoneans and the miracle of the small jar of oil?

There are basically two schools of thought, neither of which appears to be based on overwhelming evidence. R’ Meir of Rotenburg, cited in the Tur, held that since the gemara (Shabbos 21b) mentions only the obligation of “exultation and praise”, there is no obligation to rejoice by eating a special meal. His opinion is codified in the Shulhan Arukh (569:3). Why this should be the case is discussed by BaH and TaZ, and the reasons are familiar to everyone.

The arguments on the pro side are not compelling. The midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 15:3) writes that the Levites were upset because they did not bring their own tribal sacrifice for the consecration of the Tabernacle. It responds to this complaint by comparing the situation to a king who made a party for all the workers of his realm, with the exception of the one man who was his closest friend. Following the festivities, the friend was understandably nervous, thinking perhaps that he was no longer in the monarch’s good books. But when the king invited him to a special private banquet, he realized that he was still loved. So too, the Levites were not involved in the inauguration of the Tabernacle; but they were the ones who rescued the Second Temple from the Seleucid invaders. This is taken by some (Darkhei Moshe, G’RA) as evidence that Hanukka is associated with a feast. As a proof, it is rather weak.

The Mordechai Ha-arukh (cited in Hiddushei Anshe Shem on Ch. 4 of Pesahim) holds that there is a mitzvah to have a special meal on Hanukka. He bases his reasoning on the fact that it is prohibited to fast on Hanukka, as we are told in Megillas Ta’anis. R’ Shlomo Luria (Yam Shel Sh’lomo, Bava Qama 7:37) notes that a Hanukka meal should be no worse than, say, a pidyon ha-ben, whose meal the gemara describes as a mitzvah meal. In his response (#85), however, he adds that one should take care not to allow the celebrations to devolve into drunkenness. Or Zarua (Hilkhos Hanukka #321) writes that although there is a prohibition against fasting on Hanukka, there is no need to get wasted in the manner one must on Purim. Later on (#327), he states specifically that there is no need to eat bread on Hannuka; for that reason, if one forgets “Al Ha-nissim” in the grace after meals, he need not repeat it.

So far, we have seen that the evidence on either side of the question is pretty slim. Which brings me to the real point of this essay: I have discovered a hitherto unmentioned source that is explicit on our very question. Megillas Antiochus is a brief account of the Hanukka story, written in Aramaic sometime in late in the first century CE. In verse 69 of the scroll, we are told: “Therefore the Hasmoneans swore a powerful oath and inscribed, along with the Nation of Israel, to make these eight days into days of rejoicing like the days of the festivals which are written in the Torah” (Megillas Antiochus, cited in J.D. Eisenstein, Otzar Hamidrashim, v.1 pp. 188-89).

Now, the question of the status of halakhic materials found in non-Talmudic sources is an old one, and the basic consensus is that so long as it does not contradict any passage in the Talmud, it is accepted as valid. The status of Megillas Antiochus in this regard is somewhat unclear, however, as it is not exactly a mainstream text. It is certainly a Jewish document, and Eisenstein argues that it predates the Book(s) of Maccabees. It has certain parallels with another first-century text, Megillas Ta’anis (see esp. verse 70 of Antiochus), and I see no reason why it should not at the very least tip the scales in favour of the Mordechai et al. who argue in favour of the obligatory nature of the Hanukka meal.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I immediately thought of chlorophyll; your mind went straight to feces. Why? I'm not sure. ... We have the dung person over here."

-EA, to GS, re. assignment of research topic "Colour and Living Things"

From The Devil's Dictionary

Beg, v. To ask for something with an earnestness proportioned to the belief that it will not be given.

Happy 24th on the 24th!

Happy birthday to DoughBoy on his birthday! Mazel tov to Cassandra too. Looking forward to seeing both of you tomorrow at the party.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"The Zulus and the Bantus engage in that sort of drumming. You're not being multicultural."
"Do you want to go to the office? Maybe Mister Shapira is more multicultural."

-MF the Elder, ML, re. drumming on desk during class

From The Devil's Dictionary

Battle, n. A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue.

Ephraim Stulberg: Bris for Twins: Vayeishev, 5766

This week’s Torah reading features yet another pair of twins, Perez and Zerah,
who were themselves the grandchildren of a twin (Ya’akov) and possibly the
sons of a twin (Yehuda – according to R’ Yehuda in B’reishis Rabbah 84:19).
Obviously, the predisposition for having twins – specifically fraternal twins,
as opposed to identical - is genetic, though it is really the mother who is
relevant in this regard.

Anyway, This past Sunday, I attended the bris celebration of twins,
born to my wife’s mother’s father’s brother’s wife’s daughter (I think). The
main reason I decided to go – other than my wife telling me to – was to see
how they would combine the two circumcisions. What happened was that
everything was done twice, each child receiving a completely separate bris
ceremony. I’ve been thinking about why they did it that way, and here are some
ideas.

The thirteenth-century Spanish contemporaries, RaShBA and RoSh, both
discuss such a case. In response to a correspondent inquiring as to the proper
custom for circumcising twins, RaShBA (Responsa RaShBA I:382) writes that,
quite frankly, “no such situation has occurred that I should tell you what our
custom is.” Nonetheless, he writes that the mohel ought to make one blessing,
which would apply to both babies. He bases his ruling on a similar situation
discussed in the gemara regarding one who slaughters many animals (Hullin
86b). The other blessings would wait until after both circumcisions had taken
place, and would, of course, be properly pluralized where necessary -
(Maharil).

In his own responsum (28:4), the RoSh takes an identical view. He adds
that even if the second child was not in the room at the time of the “al ha-
mila”, the blessing still applies to him as well, since it was done with him
in mind. In addition to the source in Hullin, the RoSh brings an additional
proof from the Tosefta (B’rakhos 7:15), which implies that even if two
different mohels are doing the circumcisions, only one blessing need be
made: “Ten [people] who perform one mitzvah, one of them makes the blessing
for them all…if one does the same mitzvah all day, he makes only one
blessing.”

The RoSh adds that the same principle applies to the seven blessings
recited at weddings: if two couples get married at the same time, the “Sheva
B’rakhos” are recited on behalf of both, contrary to the claims of the
correspondent’s own rabbi, whose arguments were, according to the
RoSh “without reason and without proof”.

According to this logic, it would be prohibited to speak between the
two circumcisions or otherwise cause an interruption and thus necessitate a
new “unnecessary” blessing, (Tosafos, Hullin 87a s.v. Umikhsei). However, only
speech which is not related to the mitzvah is considered a disruption.

The approach of RaShbA and RoSh is adopted by other rishonim as well:
R’ Simha, a student of Rashi, cited in Mordechai on Hullin (Ch. 6, #657);
Ramah (cited in Beis Yosef Y.D. 265); Responsa Ribash (#384). It is codified
in the Shulhan Arukh (Y.D. 265:5). Rashbatz (Responsa II:42) testifies that
this was his practice as well, adding that many others had followed his ruling
in the matter. Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Mordechai on Hullin #655) also appears
to agree that only one blessing is made by the mohel on multiple
circumcisions. He discusses a case in which an individual hired a mohel for a
certain day, and subsequently another fellow hired the same mohel to perform a
bris earlier on that same day: does the first man receive a penalty payment
from the second in exchange for the blessings which he has lost out on (based
on Hullin 87a)? The BaH writes, albeit somewhat disapprovingly, that the
custom in Cracow was to recite only one blessing.

Another view is that it is better to make a separate set of blessings
for each baby. This is the opinion of Sefer Ha-ttur (cited in Tur), who argues
that since the two circumcisions cannot be done simultaneously, they require
separate blessings. Mordechai cites several ga’onim who hold that even one who
slaughters several animals makes a new blessing for each one, either because
it is unlikely that no interruption occurred, or because they are separate
bodies. Ribash cites the Ritva on Tractate Shabbos (?) as subscribing to this
view as well.

An additional factor is suggested by the TaZ. He notes that while the
Tur (E.H. 61) maintains that a single blessing is sufficient for two couples
who are getting married, the Rema notes that this ought not to be done, lest
the ayin hara come to rest upon the newlyweds. While the Rema makes no such
objection in the case of milah, this is only because it is possible to delay
the entry of the second baby until the conclusion of the first circumcision,
whereas the two couples must each be present when the blessings are made.

Arukh Ha-shulhan (265:24) differentiates between a wedding and bris, noting
that the extra festivities of a wedding are more likely to elicit the evil eye
than the relatively unadorned ceremony of circumcision.

In his Yam shel Sh’lomo (Hullin 6:9), MaHaRShaL notes that in his
time, multiple blessings were recited only if the two children were from
different parents, either because of ayin hara issues, or because of fighting
over who gets to say the blessings, or because the delay would be to great;
with twins, however, he writes that he has seen one blessing for both.

In Responsa Darkhei No’am (Y.D. 27), the author writes that in Egypt
the custom was to recite multiple blessings for multiple babies. Arukh Ha-
shulhan (Y.D. 265:25) also writes that this was the custom in his region.

Aside from the potential danger of an unavoidable interruption, or concerns
over the evil eye, there is perhaps a more fundamental reason for why the
custom of splitting the circumcisions appears to have developed. The gemara
(Sotah 8a) teaches: “We do not give two sotahs to drink at once, nor do we
purify two lepers at once, nor pierce the ears of two slaves at once.” This,
explains the gemara, is because we do not perform mitzvos in “bundles”
(“havilos havilos”); rather, each commandment is performed on its own. The
gemara distinguishes between a case in which a single individual performs the
commandments and one in which each mitzvah is done by a separate individual.
Rashi and Tosafos explain this distinction as meaning that if a single
individual does both mitzvos and tries to speed things up by, for instance,
having the lepers stand next to each other, thus creating a sort of assembly
line, it shows that the mitzvos are an unwelcome burden. If two different
people perform the mitzvos, then each action is unrelated to the other and
there is no appearance of impatience on the part of either actor.

The Rambam (as explained in Magen Avraham 147:11), appears to hold
that it is only when two different people concurrently perform the same
mitzvos that the prohibition against bundling applies; otherwise, we cannot
really say that the mitzvos have been “bundled”, since they have not occurred
at the same precise moment.

Accordingly, writes the Magen Avraham, the Rambam would hold that it
is acceptable to bring both babies in and to circumcise them one after the
other, so long as the two circumcisions do not occur at the same instant;
Tosafos, conversely, would prohibit even bringing the two babies into the same
room at the same time if the mohel is going to be the same for both.

RaShbaTz also addresses the issue of “bundling” mitzvos. He explains
that there is no issue involved in joining the two circumcisions together,
though his reasoning is far from transparent. Arukh Ha-shulhan (265:25) writes
that for commandments whose time is on that particular day, there is no
prohibition against “bundling”, since in a sense the mitzvos must be bundled
together in close temporal proximity.

In conclusion, while the rishonim generally tended to combine multiple
circumcisions, including them all in the same set of blessings, later
authorities have, for one reason or another, preferred to divide the
ceremonies. The real origins of this halakhic shift are obscure, but are
perhaps alluded to in a passage in the responsum written by RaShbaTz, who
notes that although most places were accustomed to combining the ceremonies,
they would bring a separate cup of wine for each child, over which they
recited the àì÷éðå åàì÷é àáåúéðå, ÷ééí àú äéìã äæä... formula (though not the
áåøà ôøé äâôï or àùø ÷ãù éãéã îáèï blessings, which were said only on the
first cup. He adds: “There is no obligation to do so; rather, it is done in
order to appease the women.”

The Two Wise Men†

A fond farewell to Mr. and Mrs. G, who have seen the Star of Jerusalem* and are moving to Israel on Sunday.

† Used in its archaic sense to refer to any plural group of humans.
* Near Bethlehem.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I like that, because it's one of those expressions you can use both ways - 'the bottom of my heart', or 'the heart of my bottom'."

-SG

From The Devil's Dictionary

Basilisk, n. The cockatrice. A sort of serpent hatched from the egg of a cock. The basilisk had a bad eye, and its glance was fatal. Many infidels deny this creature's existence, but Semprello Aurator saw and handled one that had been blinded by lightning as a punishment for having fatally gazed on a lady of rank whom Jupiter loved. Juno afterward restored the reptile's sight and hid it in a cave. Nothing is so well attested by ancients as the existence of the basilisk, but the cocks have stopped laying.

Dedicated to Lord Voldemort

A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel and were standing around in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. About an hour later the manager comes out of his office and asked them to disperse. "But why?", they asked as they moved along. "Because," said the manager, "I can't stand chess nuts boasting in an open foyer."

Quote

"It's all true. We are space aliens. I'm amazed that it's taken you so long to find out."

-Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, on a tabloid news story headlined "12 SENATORS ARE FROM OUTER SPACE!"

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Tomorrow. Same place. Same time. Only earlier."

-TD

From The Devil's Dictionary

Barometer, n. An ingenious instrument which indicates what kind of weather we are having.

"Mill"ion dollar question

If a windmill produces wind-energy and a paper mill produces paper, does a John Stuart Mill produce irreverent, satircal comedy show hosts? And I don't want to think about the clone armies being produced in Don Mills.

Kwote

"Be Cool in School! Good Grades Has Its Rewards."

-sign at Wendy's restaurants

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"It's alright, little fellow, we'll fix you."

-RBP, to a crying Yisroel at his bris

From The Devil's Dictionary

Babe or Baby, n. A misshapen creature of no particular age, sex, or condition, chiefly remarkable for the violence of the sympathies and antipathies it excites in others, itself without sentiment or emotion. There have been famous babes; for example, little Moses, from whose adventure in the bulrushes the Egyptian hierophants of seven centuries before doubtless derived their idle tale of the child Osiris being preserved on a floating lotus leaf.

Ephraim Stulberg on Vayishlach, 5765

Rachel died in childbirth, calling her second son “Ben Oni”, a name which Ya’akov changed into Binyamin, or Benjamin. (No doubt this is the source for those who have shortened the name to “Ben”. I know of no reason for the contraction “Yum”, however.)

What do these names mean? And why did Ya’akov change the name given to the boy by his mother? Moreover, how could he do so? Excellent questions indeed.

There are several schools of thought regarding “Ben Oni”. Some (Rashi, Onkelos) render it as “Son of my suffering.” Others (Sa’dya Ga’on, Ibn Ezra, Ramban) prefer “Son of my mourning.” The idea is basically the same, however, and indeed, judging from the context of the naming, one could hardly deduce any other meaning.

According to Ramban and B’chor Shor, Ya’akov didn’t really change the name of his son; he merely altered its meaning. The word “oni” can mean “mourning” (“lo achalti be-oni mi-menu…”) but it can also mean strength (“reishis oni”). And “yamin” also means strength (“yemincha hashem ne-edari ba-ko’ach”). So “Binyamin” was really just an interpretation of “Ben Oni”, not an outright renaming.

The Midrash (B’reishis Rabbah 82:9) adds an interesting twist on this idea. It says: “oni”, meaning “suffering”, is Aramean. Ya’akov changed the name to Binyamin, which is Hebrew.” The Midrash is very unclear in its intent, and the commentaries are both unconvincing and vague in their explanations.

So here’s what I think. Rachel was a native of Aramea, and her native tongue must surely have been Aramaic. We see that her father, when he christened (to use the term anachronistically) the goodwill monument on Mount Gilad, used an Aramaic name: Yegar Sahadusa. Although Rachel would have most likely learned Hebrew from her husband, Aramaic would have remained her preferred language. Thus in a time of extreme emotion, it seems not unlikely that she would have slipped back into Aramaic. Thus, the midrash tells us, when she called her baby “Ben Oni”, she was speaking Aramaic, and meant that he had caused her a lot of grief. Ya’akov, however, perhaps due to halachic considerations, was not in the delivery room, and lacked the context to understand that Rachel had been speaking Aramaic. Hearing only the words “Ben Oni”, he thought that Rachel had been speaking Hebrew, and thus gave the word “oni” a Hebrew understanding, interpreting it in the manner with which he was familiar (as in his blessing to Re’uven, “reishis oni”), i.e. strength. Though Ya’akov didn’t intend to change Rachel’s name, that is what he ended up doing.

As an aside, I would only point out that the contention that “oni”, meaning “mourning” or “suffering”, is of Aramaic origin, is perhaps open to debate. The mishnah (Sotah 32a) notes that among the things which can be said in any language – not just Hebrew - is the declaration made at the “bi’ur ma’aser” ceremony. The gemara derives this fact from a g’zeirah shava from Sotah. But why must it do so? Part of the utterance contains the words “lo achalti be-oni mi-menu” (D’varim 26:14). So clearly one may use other languages, such as Aramaic, in the “viduy ma’aser! Why the need for the g’zeirah shava?

Even if we admit that the two names are completely different, it is still possible to understand how Ya’akov could have changed his son’s name. There is a custom that the mother gets naming rights over the first child, while those of the second go to the father (see Igros Moshe Y.D 3:101). While Ya’akov seems not to have exercised this right with his other wives, he may have adopted the practice when it came to his main wife. Perhaps his deference to his wives’ nomenclature was in keeping with Aramean practice, while back in Israel (or at least outside of Aramea) he felt free to revert to his own traditions. (We find that while Eisav was a unanimous choice for Yitzchak’s first-born, Ya’akov seems to have been selected only by a masculine singular, i.e. Yitzchak. This is in line with our theory.) Thus Ya’akov, when he renamed his son, was merely exercising his prerogative which had been usurped – perhaps unwittingly – by his wife.

Ephraim Stulberg on Vayishlach, 5766

The plot of land purchased by Ya’akov on the outskirts of Sh’hem (B’reishis 33:18-20) is listed by the midrash (B’reishis Rabbah 79:7) as one of three tracts whose Jewish ownership can never be questioned by the nations of the world, the other two being the Temple Mount and the Mahpela Cave. Though the modern reader will no doubt find the midrash to be somewhat dated in its political assumptions, its reasoning is really quite simple when taken within context: these three locations are explicitly recorded by the Torah as having been purchased with hard currency by the Jews (Ya’akov, David, and Avraham, respectively).

The acreage purchased by Ya’akov from Hamor and the Sh’hemites was, as the Torah describes in this week’s parasha, used by Ya’akov to build a monument; it was later to serve as the burial plot for Yosef (Yehoshua 24:32). Considering these two factors, the Tomb of Yosef would seem to be an idea place from which to offer prayers to God. However, at least according to one early halakhic authority, this is not the case.

In Chapter 11 of his famous work, Kaphtor Va-pherah, R’ Ashtor Ha-parhi writes: “And into this field in which lies Yosef, Peace be Upon Him, from the day I began to examine the Land of Israel, I have withheld my feet from entering…and this is because of the holiness, for there was an Altar there.” He goes on to cite a passage in T’mura (14b), which refers to Giv’on as a “holy place”.

This queer passage attracted the notice of R’ Sh’muel Wosner, the well-known present-day halakhic authority and author of the responsa, Shevet Ha-levi. In reply to a correspondent’s bewilderment with the logic of the Kaphtor Va-pherah, R’ Wosner essentially dismisses R’ Ha-parhi’s stance as a mere idiosyncrasy, not at all reflective of normative halakha. He argues that the only holy place in Judaism that has retained it status is the Temple Mount itself (Z’vahim 112b), and therefore there is no reason to think that this particular spot, on the eastern outskirts of Sh’hem, should retain any special status. He dismisses the proof from T’mura as irrelevant, since the gemara refers only to the period in which the Tabernacle was resident at Giv’on. At that point in time, Giv’on was indeed a holy place; but its status was diminished once the Temple was built in Jerusalem (Shevet Ha-levi IV:188).

R’ Wosner concludes his responsum by citing the midrash that notes the permanence of the Jews’ proprietorship of the Tomb of Yosef with which we began our discussion, though he doesn’t make clear what this has to do with the Kaphtor Va-pherah’s position.

Though this may not have been R’ Wosner’s meaning, it seems plausible to explain the midrash’s relevance in the following manner. The discussion of whether or not the sanctity of, say, the Land of Israel was permanent assumes that the Land is capable of falling out of Jewish hands. The Tomb of Yosef, according to midrash, is inalienable: it can never be claimed by the nations as anything other than the rightful property of the Jews.

In a famous passage, Rambam distinguishes the sanctity of the Temple Mount, which he holds to be immutable, regardless of whether the Jews exercise political jurisdiction over it, and that of the rest of the Land of Israel, regarding which he decides in favour of the opinion that states: “The first sanctification was only temporary, not for all time” (Hilchos Beis Ha-b’hira 6:14-16). He explains that whereas the holiness of the Land of Israel derived solely from the national conquest of the generation of Yehoshua, and was thus susceptible to nullification once the Jews no longer had control, the holiness of the Temple was based on the presence of the Shechina, “and the Shechina is never nullified”.

This combination of factors, the perpetual landholder’s rights and the presence of the Shechina, appears to lend credence to the custom of the Kaphtor Va-pherach, and it is perhaps instructive that he singled out Yosef’s Tomb for this special status, combining as it does these two qualities. That being said, one cannot help but side with the Shevet Ha-levi, who dismisses the Kaphtor Va-pherach’s practice as a mere personal humra.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Not only does God play dice with the universe, he plays craps."

-AS, re. famous Einstein quote

From The Devil's Dictionary

Australia, n. A country lying in the South Sea, whose industrial and commercial development has been unspeakably retarded by an unfortunate dispute among geographers as to whether it is a continent or an island.

And what is your job exactly?

As mostof you know, Canada will soon be holding a federal election. Although I've lived at the same address for over a year, I was still in Toronto at the time of the last election, and so I figured that I would have to fill out a form or something in order to get registered for the correct riding.

I started by calling Elections Canada and explaining to them that as I had moved since the last election, I needed to know what to do to make sure I could vote in my correct riding on January 23rd. Now, one would think that Elections Canada would be able to tell me whether or not I even need to bother doing this, but you'd be wrong. The woman barely understands what I mean, and after explaining it to her several times, she tells me that I need to speak to the "Returning Officer." I have no clue what a returning officer is, but when I keep repeating what I need in order to confirm that the 'returning officer' is what I need, and she confirms this for me. She gives me the man's name and tells me where his office is.

I've been meaning to go for a while, but I keep forgetting, or having other things to do. Finally today I decided to go down. I get there, I walk in, and there is a woman at the desk. "Hi," I say, "I'm here to..." and she tries to finish my sentence for me. "Vote," she says. "No," I answer, "I need to register." You'd think I told her that I need to bench lulav from the look I got. It's almost as if she's never even heard of someone registering to vote. I try to clarify by telling her that I've moved into the riding since the last election, and I need to make sure that I'm registered to vote in this riding, as opposed to Englinton-Lawrence. She starts racking her brain trying to figure out how to do that. "Let me see if there's something to let you do that," she says as she starts searching the area. And as it turns out, sitting right behind her on the desk was a stack of clipboards with voter registration forms on each of them! Why the hell is the concept of registration so foreign to her, when a)Elections Canada told me that that is one main purpose of that office, and b)she has the forms sitting behind her the entire day?!

She gives me the form, and seems content letting me fill it out, hand it in, and leave. But then, when another woman comes in, and she decides to confirm with her, for incompetence's sake, that I'm doing what I should, we discover that I can't just fill in the form, but must go in the back room to talk with someone as well. The second woman explains that although she'd do it, she has "some weird voting call" to make. Maybe Christine upstairs can do it. So the first woman calls upstairs and starts explaining the situation, and asks if Christine is available to help me. Well, I was sitting in a chair, nowhere near the phone, minding my own business, filling out the form...and I COULD TELL THAT CHRISTINE COULDN'T HELP ME. However, the woman on the phone with her couldn't figure it out, and she had to get the second woman to talk. After each of them had spoken with Christine for a few minutes, they finally figured out that Christine couldn't help. But not simply because she was busy. No. The explanation they gave eachother was that, although they hadn't realized it before, "Nobody goes upstairs." It sounded like it was some top-security headquarters of a top-secret spy agency, where "the boss" gives the orders from upstairs, but nobody's ever seen him. That's the impression they gave. I had to remind myself that this was only Elections Canada.

When they finally sorted it out, the second woman told me that she'd help me, and brought me into a tiny room in the back. I sat down and finished filling out my form, and she started looking all over for books, instructions, forms, who knows. She had no idea if I had filled out the right form, and had even less of a clue as to how to figure it out. She must have paraphrased and asked me five times whether I've ever voted before. I don't know how to make it clearer than "I have voted before, but not in this riding. I need to make sure that I am able to vote in this riding." She took my form from me and read through it. She asked me again if I'm on the voters list at all. Again I repeated that I believed that I was, but that I also believed that the voters list had me listed as living on Meadowbrook Road in North York. She again examined my form, and then started flipping through a book she had in front of her. She was reading the book and looking through all her forms. It seemed as if I am the ONLY person to EVER have this issue, and she has NO WAY of knowing what to do with me.

I sat there thinking, "What's your job?" How is it that you have NO IDEA what's going on? Isn't this what this office is for - to prepare the public to vote in the election? How can you work here if you need to read your manual to understand what to do, and can't even figure it out then?

She explains that despite the fact that the form I had filled out asks for your former address and current address, it may still be the wrong form. She finds a different form that offers several different ways to "change your voting status," one of which is to transfer to a different electoral district. It sounds like she was right to question the form the first woman gave me. I guess the logical course of action now would be to have me fill out the new form, right? Wrong again! That would make too much sense! Instead, the best thing to do is to continue to aimlessly flip through the little manual in an attempt to find some other unrelated information! Ooohh, I'm due for another, "are you on the voters list?" I mean, what is this? Is this 'back room' an interrogation room, where they take you to see if you crack before they let you vote? Are they playing mind games on me to see if I finally admit that I'm NOT on the voters list?

The woman tells me that she'd love to be able to find out if I'm on the voters list, but can't. Why not? She doesn't offer a reason. After she looks through her forms again, she decides she's going to use THE COMPUTER to see if I'm on the voters list. Wow! What a concept! Use a computer to help you find the answer to a question? Is that possible? Welcome to the 1990s. You're a little late.

So now she takes me into another room and sits down at her computer. She has my form in her hand, which has not only my full name, but my date of birth as well. "What is your last name, and how do you spell it?" she asks. As stupid as the question sounds, considering she has my name written down on a piece of paper in her hand, I decide to play along. She then asks me for my birthday, starting with the day. Again, although she has it in front of her, I answer "27." She types that in and asks for the month. "August," I say. And what she did next shocked me. She started counting on her fingers from January. I couldn't believe it. Sure, I can understand it taking you a second to figure out the number of the month. But to have to count from January on your fingers? Give me a break. By the time she got to April, I blurted out "08!" She then asked me for my year of birth. I told her 1982. "Okay, 1952," she repeated. "82!" I exclaimed, although what I meant to say was, "Do I LOOK like I'm 53, idiot?!"

Finally, after playing around with the computer for a while, she found me on the voters list, as I had promised. In fact, I was listed under the proper address. It seems that because I had submitted a tax return from this address, Elections Canada had the updated records as well. Good thing I confirmed with Elections Canada so many times that I had to go to register. Otherwise, I might have avoided an absolutely useless trip.

Precautionary Repercussions - as per noted recent concern

Hello. Recently, Iran has banned American music in their country. I think this is a wonderful thing. As a matter of fact, I believe that Canada should do the same, for both American and Canadian music. But it should not stop there. All media should be completely banned with severe consequences for all those who go against the law. Some repercussions may include the forced removal of appendages, toes, fingers, a tongue… Personally, I have never watched a movie, I have never heard any kind of secular, popular music. But from what I do hear and see, it is destroying the nation, destroying society and the spirituality of our people. Thank you for your time.

Celebrate Good Times... Come On!

Hey all...

Dave and I are planning a little get together to celebrate the birth of the carpenter. Who is going to be here on the 25th? We were thinking of an afternoon of movies and deliciousness. Who's in?

Mrs. Rotes

List #7

Top 5 things I should be doing right now but am instead checking this site for the upteenth time today.

Aaron's List
1) Working on applications
2) Studying for an exam
3) Writing my take home exam
4) Doing the reading for my take home exam
5) Going to sleep

Idiotic Legal Matter #1

The mayor of a Brazilian town is trying to introduce a law making it illegal for residents to... die. Mayor Roberto Pereira da Silva, of Biritiba-Mirim, came up with the idea as a solution to a municipal difficulty; the town's only cemetery is full. His proposal to the town council asks residents to "take good care of your health in order not to die" and warns that "infractors will be held responsible for their acts." . .

List #6: Top 4 menu items at the Green Ethiopian Restaurant in Lusaka, Zambia

1) Timatim fitfit
2) Ye-misir wat
3) Ye-beg tibs
4) Key wat

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Sour milk builds character."

-UH

From The Devil's Dictionary

Arrest, v.t. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.

God made the world in six days and was arrested on the seventh.

-The Unauthorized Version

Ephraim Stulberg on Vayishlach, 5764

This week’s parasha contains the cryptic incident involving Reuven and Bilhah, in which a literal reading of the verse (35:22) seems to indicate that he slept with her. Chaza”l (Shabbos 55b) tell us that this is not to be taken at face value: what in fact happened is that after Rachel died, Yaakov had moved his bed into the tent of Bilhah, rather than into the tent of Leah. Reuven, Leah’s oldest son, felt that this was an affront to the honour of his mother, and moved Yaakov’s bed into Leah’s tent. The question is, how does the gemara know this? In fact, it is the subject of debate amongst the tannaim, and some seem to hold that Reuven in fact did commit a more serious sin. So the opinion which says that he did not must be based on a reading of the verses, rather than some sort of tradition passed down through the generations; otherwise, why the argument?

The verse immediately preceding this strange incident of Reuven is an interesting one. Following the setting up of a monument at Rachel’s gravesite, the Torah tells us that Yaakov “traveled, and he pitched his tent at a distance from Migdal Eider” (35:21). This verse is somewhat troubling, evoking an almost irresistible desire on the part of the reader to scream out: “Who cares?!” Migdal Eider, as Rashbam writes, was on the outskirts of Beis Lachem, where Rachel was buried. So this doesn’t seem to represent a great movement on Yaakov’s part – in fact, “next to Migdal Eider” could mean that he was still in Beis Lachem. If the Torah is not giving us anything much in the way of a practical lesson in geography, what then is the verse telling us? The next verse is also a bit troubling. It tells us that the incident of Reuven occurred “when Yisrael was dwelling in that land”? Again, who cares? Isn’t this obvious? Was he living in the sky? (See Rashi, who addresses this last question)

I would therefore like to propose reading the verses in question somewhat differently. When the Torah tells us that Yaakov traveled, it doesn’t mean to tell us that he decamped to a location which was close by. Rather, it is referring to his rearrangement of the tents of his camp. When it says that “he pitched his tent (“oholo”)” the word tent is written as though it should be read “her tent (“oholah”)”. In several places, the midrash makes use of such a spelling to state that the Torah is referring to the tent of a man’s wife, which is both his and hers (see Bereishis Rabbah 36:4 and 39:15 ,which correspond to the verses Bereishis 9:21 and 13:3). Thus one might interpret this pitching of the tent as an adjustment in where Yaakov placed his main sleeping quarters, in the tent in which he most commonly slept with a particular partner. Previously, his main dwelling had been with Rachel, as Rashi notes at the end of last week’s parasha. Where did he put it now? The Torah writes that he set up “yonder from Migdal Eider.” I would like to suggest that this can be read as saying that he placed it adjacent to the tent of “the one who raised the flock”, which is a reference to Rachel (though it should have probably said “Migadeles Eider”, this is close enough), the only one of the Matriarchs known to have been a shepherd. And I would go further, and suggest that this would mean the tent of Bilhah, who was the maidservant of Rachel, and even after she was manumitted, still seems to have been in some position of dependence vis a vis Rachel, and whose tent would have probably have been closest to Rachel’s. The Torah then goes on to say that it was “when Yisrael was living in that land”, i.e. next to Migdal Eider, or next to Rachel’s old tent, that being in Bilhah’s tent, that Reuven made his decision. Because of this choice of relocation, Reuven acted as he did.

List #5: Top 5 Sports Players Named "Bobby"

Quote

"Left to their own devices, the three networks would televise live executions. Except Fox - they'd televise live naked executions."

-Gary David Goldberg, TV producer

From The Devil's Dictionary

Armor, n. The kind of clothing worn by a man whose tailor is a blacksmith.

List #4: Top 7 OTI nicknames

Gaby 'n Fish
1) Crapman
2) Bagra
3) Grossëporkëfachëbrutë
4) Fragle
5) Paddington
6) T-Bone
7) Gutty

Doughboy
1)Doughboy
2)Doug Houda
3)Charlie Huddy
4)Spanky
5)Slimy
6)Paddington
7)Chug

List #3: 8 Ways that Gaby n' Fish and I can spend our afternoon

hevnsangel19
1) Bake banabread and deliver it to hevnsangel19.
2) Play hallway basketball.
3) Have a pj party.
4) Go over to 38 meadowbrook for dinner party followed by evening games.
5) Go to J2 and flirt mildly with the short, but entertaining Israeli waitress.
6) While at J2 flirt mildy with the tall, but entertaining Israeli man.
7) Make many plans of things to do like going drinking and playing pool and never actually get around to doing them out of laziness and lacking courage to face the cold weather
8) End up going back to a certain friend who somehow managed to turn their living room into a high definition all you can watch theatre.

List #2: Top 4 Strongbad Emails

Doughboy's list
1)Kids' book
2)Caper
3)Japanese Cartoon
4)Montage

Quote

"I am two with nature."

-Woody Allen

From The Devil's Dictionary

Arena, n. In politics, an imaginary rat-pit in which the statesman wrestles with his record.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Did you know that painters in Boston are often autistic?"

-RBC

In Today's Mail

The following enlightening sentence appears in fine print at the bottom of a letter I received today from Sears and JPMorgan Chase Bank:

® The trademarks "Sears", "Sears Club" and "Chase" are owned by their respective owners.

I thought it was mighty fine of them to let me know.

List #1: Top 10 Radio Free Vestibule Characters

Gaby 'n Fish's list
1) Bill Jacobs
2) Paul Banooky
3) Dave Bradock
4) Quasi Pompom
5) Filipa and Danina
6) Brent Carlyle
7) Henry Timmons
8) Casper Haboot
9) The Moron (from Martin and the Moron)
10) Mr. Bill O’leary (pronounced Tibodeau)

Doughboy's list
1) Felipa!
1a) Danina!
3) Guys waiting for the bus
4) Murray Myron
5) Herve Villechaize
6) Ricardo Montalbon
7) Kevin
8) G-d
9) Jimmy the Toad
10) Freddie the Frog

En"list" Me!

I’m not sure how this has happened, but I’ve been motivated to make a post by a bus advertisement for the second time in one week. This particular advertisement was for the “Book of Lists” by the father, son, and daughter team of Irving Wallace, David Wallechinsky, and Amy Wallace (shouldn’t they all have the same last name?). Included in the ad were many of the list titles found in their books, and I was quite unimpressed with the selection (to say the least!). This got me thinking about lists, and I came to the conclusion that choosing the title of the list is equally as important as choosing the contents of the list.

While I know many people already have and continue to make lists of their own, I think that it would make a good blog game. So in the spirit of the Wallace (Wallechinsky?) family I hereby announce the beginning of the list game.

Any blogger may submit a list title, and everybody else should feel free to add your own list in the comments You don’t have to follow up the title with a list, you can leave that for other people in the comments if you like, whatever, why am I writing instructions on how to make a list?

Identity Crisis - See Comments

Capital!

"If that happens, I'll just buy a new audience."

-David Letterman, on whether his $14 million salary and new time slot might alienate his audience

Ephraim Stulberg on Vayeitzei, 5765

There is a rather cryptic verse in this week’s parasha, which goes as follows: “And the eyes of Leah were ‘rakos’ and Rachel was beautiful in form and complexion” (29:17). What does the Torah mean when it tells us that Leah’s eyes were “rakos”?

The gemara (Bava Basra 123a) discusses this issue at length. It is troubled by the seemingly disparaging remark about Leah’s appearance, and therefore offers two opinions, one of which is quoted in Rashi on the parasha. But there are difficulties with both explanations: the first one (that the Torah means that her portion was “lengthy” – as in the phrase “ayin yapha”, i.e. that her sons were Kohanim and Levi’im), seems clearly to be a drasha, not at all a translation of the verse, while the second explanation – that her eyes were swollen from crying over the thought of having to marry Eisav - still leaves us with the impression that she was in fact not very pretty. See Ibn Ezra, who dismisses the gemara’s question, and then seems to heap scorn on a Karaite who actually brought that opinion.

An alternative approach to the verse is adopted by two of the Targumim, Onkelos and R’ Saadiya Ga’on, who both render the word “rakos” as meaning fine and healthy (as in the phrase “rach vatov” describing the delicious animal that Avraham served his guests): in other words, she had very nice eyes (see the Tur, who elaborates on this). This explanation is also brought by the Da’as Zekeinim, who say that in fact it was Rachel, who was infertile, who was afraid that she would fall to Eisav, while Yaakov would marry her sister. According to this explanation, we can answer the question of the Or Hahayim, who asks that the Torah seems to suggest, through its juxtaposition of the verse “And Leah’s eyes…” with that of “And Ya’akov loved Rachel,” that Yaakov loved Rachel because she was beautiful, which seems like a rather superficial motive. According to the Targum, the Torah is telling us just the opposite, that Yaakov fell in love with Rachel in spite of the fact that her eyes did not look so nice.

This question of the appearance of a girl’s eyes is an interesting one. The gemara (Ta’anis 24a) brings a parable which says that if a bride has nice eyes, then we can assume that she is chaste, and there is no need to check up on her, but that if her eyes are not nice, then more research is necessary. This is a strange statement. The HYD”A, in his notes on Sefer Ha-Hassidim (#135), explains that the “eyes” mentioned in the parable are really a reference to the hospitability and charitability of the girl: if she is charitable, then that is highly revealing of her character, and no more questions must be asked. (He bases this idea on the gemara in Bava Metzia (87a) which says that most women are stingy). This explanation fits in very well with the context of the gemara in Ta’anis, where the parable is employed to criticize the Exilarch’s household as the cause of a lack of rainfall: the gemara makes it clear over there that charity is effective in combating a lack of rain.

According to this gemara, we can better understand the gemara in Bava Basra which we cited above. When R’ Eliezer explains that the verse really means that Leah received a large portion (“ayin yapha”), he does not mean that to be the literal translation of the phrase “and Leah’s eyes were ‘rakos’”. Rather, he explains that the Torah is telling us that Leah had a generous spirit: that she gave with a kindly eye. The implication of this phrase – much like someone saying that a girl has a “nice personality” – is that she may not have been all that physically attractive, but this is a more roundabout way of saying it, similar to the reference to “animals which are not kosher”, which the gemara cites as a more acceptable way of saying something negative (P’sachim 3a). In return for her generosity, R’ Eliezer tells us that Leah was rewarded with portions of Kehunah and Leviya.

From The Devil's Dictionary

Archbishop, n. An ecclesiastical dignitary one point holier than a bishop.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I would be obliged if you guys would use the skills you learned last day to fill these out."

-KA, instructing students to fill in the proper circles on Cayley Contest forms after they had recently done the same on AHSME forms

Doughboy should be in town right about now, what do fellow bloggers have to comment on this?

Captain's Log M

Date:....You decide for a change. I'm getting sick of this.

Wow. What an action packed, fun filled....last three days it's been. I don't think anything interesting hapened at al until Thrusday, and only then because I was bored and, against my better judgement, went to the shok again. I didn't even have plans to buy anything, but it's amazing what you'll do if somebody tugs you by the sleves and says: "Pwease?"

So off I went to the shok, only to spend 70 shek (my money!) on gummies, with the incredibly genius idea of selling them for a marginal profit of two shek a bag. What a wonderful idea!, I thought at the time. Little did I realize that such things were prohibited in the dorms. Ya. So no selling candy for me.

Now, you may be thinking that having 30 bags of gummies is not a bad thing. Main reason that it is a bad thing: the temptation to eat them all in one sitting. So hard not to. So I have a plan. Is this is the last week of my dorm advisor's stay in Isi before he gets married, I am going to leave him a nice candy present before he goes. I'm sure he'll love it, all the more so because I plan to splay the candies over his sleeping form tonight. He he.

Next, almost immedietly after I got back, I was welcomed by the ringing of a cellphone...in the form of an RPG spoof. That was worth a good six/seven hours worth of laughter and I'm still finding it relatively amusing now. As I can't play the tunes for you, and thus demonstrate how the game works, I'd be glad to send a copy of the script by special request; as in request later; as in when I get back.

Thus the weekend was welcomed with warmth, unbearable heat that is just breaking, and the promise of 14 guys from Ottawa cramped into some dormitories. I must say that Neveih Yaaqov (why a "Q" I have no idea) is about 70 times nicer than Maalot Daphna. And the dorms at Beis where about 40 times cleaner than mine. I am only mildly envious, however, for our dirty floors have character; as in the fungi on the floor talk to us.

Nothing truly exciting happened at Beis, but it was a pleasant and enjoyed time by all, especially for, I must imagine, the seminary girls who backed some delicious cookies and chocalate cake. MMMMM. Getting to see friends from home was nice, in an "It's just like home!" sort of way.

Without anymore delay, therefore, I bring you to the subject of my switchings. This falls under two categories: Room and Program. As program is shorter and easier to explain, I'll just say that I'm not switching as of now.

Rooms is another issue. I'll be talking the room of our beloved young future husband. This means I will have a room with a private shower and possibly even carpets, if my future brigmate and I get aorund to it. I doubt we will. The move will take place over the course of the week and will be finished by next Sunday.

In regard to changing rooms, in regard to you peeps that is, means that I will now have a brigmate with a laptop which means, yes, I will be getting back to working on Search/Crescendo. YAY! as I've done neither write nor draw the last few days. Sleep is a good thing, as I've discovered.

I've been my artistic nature came in the form of a mini keyboard, on which I am mapping out the various VGM tunes that I know. So far, I've got two Mario 3 tunes. Again, laugh all you want, but I say to you: What are you doing? (Please tell me! I need to know!)

So that's about wraps up these action packed....three days. As for me, I'm a gonna go sleep, I think.

Quoting "Totally not getting old,"

Zev Fox

Six People Held Hostage by Captain Salamander and Company

After three days of silence, Captain Salamander and Bob the Builder have made their first move. In two separate attacks early this morning, one by Captain Salamander and one by Bob the Builder, a total of six people have been kidnapped and are being held hostage. The first attack, performed solo by Bob the Builder, occurred at a local grocery store just after opening. Bob the Builder threatened his captives and onlookers with a grenade, before making his getaway in a big yellow truck named Skip. Hours later Captain Salamander went to work holding a father and son at gunpoint before making his escape with the two hostages.

The names of the hostages have yet to be released. However security photos from both crime scenes show the shear terror on the faces of the hostages, as their captors smile in insane delight (see pictures below).

It is not known what part Neil Patrick Harris has played up to this point, but authorities are quick to point out that Harris has never been one to shy away from violent kidnappings. Harris’ foray into kidnapping began in 1999, shortly after the failure of “Stark Raving Mad” a sitcom starring Harris and Tony Shalhoub. Harris blamed Shalhoub for the sitcom’s failure, claiming that Shalhoub was living in the past and that he thought the popularity of his Wings character “Antonio Scarpacci” was all that was needed to make their new sitcom a success. Those close to Harris and Shalhoub say there was more than just bad blood between the two actors, there was venomous hatred. In retrospect Shalhoub’s kidnapping was simply the next step in their relationship. In a carefully thought out plan, Harris invited Shalhoub to his parent’s restaurant called Perreniel's in Albuquerue, New Mexico, on the pretense of “turning the corner” and “starting over again.” Before the evening was over, 13 innocent bystanders were dead, and Shalhoub was Harris’ captive, completely at his mercy. Shalhoub eventually managed to escape, but only after being tortured. Shalhoub refuses to talk about what transpired during his three weeks of captivity but it’s been speculated that he was forced to watch reruns of “Dr. Phil” twenty-four hours a day, for an entire three weeks. Many people are quick to dismiss this rumour as ridiculous and asinine, claiming no human being could possible survive such an ordeal.

Authorities have yet to be contacted by the kidnappers and do not know their motives, but they are warning the public to be on their guard as Captain Salamander, Bob the Builder, and Neil Patrick Harris are a highly sadistic trio that could strike anytime, anywhere.

Caption: A security camera shows Bob the Builder holding a grenade, his hostages at his mercy.

Caption: Captain Salamander smiles sadisticly as he captures his two hostages.

Ephraim Stulberg on Vayeitzei, 5764

Following her blow up with Yaakov, Rachel tells him to take her maidservant, Bilhah, “that she will give birth, and [and I will raise the child] on my lap, and I will also become built from her [i.e. blessed with children]” (30: 3). In the age before fertility medication, this seems to have been a fairly common practice. It was employed by Sarah when she failed to conceive from Avraham (16:2), and it was also used by Leah after she stopped giving birth following her fourth son (30:9). Rashi notes that the word “also” in Rachel’s comment to Yaakov was a reference to the tactic employed by Sarah. But once we strip beneath their superficial similarities, we find that these three cases are in fact rather different.

If we examine the verses, we see that there are two different strategies at play here. With Sarah, Rashi writes clearly that the idea was that by bringing in a competitor to Avraham’s household, Sarah’s self-sacrifice would earn her the merit of bearing children.[1] With Rachel, this was not the idea at all: rather, the point seems to have been that she would raise whatever children Bilhah would bear her as her own (see Onkelos on 30:3). This intent is made clear in 30:6, when Rachel calls the boy Dan, “because Hashem has judged me and also listened to my voice, and has given me a son”. Yet in Bereishis Rabbah, Rachel is quoted as saying that just as Sarah brought a competitor into the household, so too will I – this seems to imply that her intentions were the same as those of Sarah. With Leah, we return to the idea that Sarah expressed: following Leah’s giving birth to Yissachar, she thanks Hashem for giving her “my reward, that I gave my maidservant to my husband”. Leah did not seem to accept the sons of Zilpah as her own.

There is also another difference between the three cases. While Sarah expressed some doubt as to what her action would accomplish (“perhaps I will become built”), Rachel seems to have been fairly certain of success. Leah offers no words of explanation for her actions: the Torah simply tells us that it was in reaction to her having stopped giving birth.

A simple answer to these discrepancies would seem to lie in the identity of the maidservants involved. The Ohr Hachayim goes to great lengths to explain that while Hagar was never actually freed by Sarah, the same is not true of Bilhah and Zilpah. Sarah felt that even if Hagar would give birth, a not too unlikely eventuality, the child would not be a legitimate heir for Avraham. All of her hopes rested with herself: perhaps in the merit of bringing in a lowly maidservant to share her husband with her, she would merit to bear children. But since this sort of a merit is dependent on one’s ability to bear the indignity, Sarah was unsure whether she would ultimately pass the test. And in fact she appears to have not done so.

Rachel did not have recourse to Sarah’s tactics. For starters, she already had a competitor for her husband’s attentions, and it seemed not to have any effect on her own infertility. Surely, if the merit of Rachel’s actions on her planned wedding night did not do the trick, bringing in Bilhah would not make things any different. But she could still have Bilhah give birth to children, and raise them. Again, Bilhah was quite likely to be fertile, so Rachel felt no doubt that she would give birth to children, and thus did not say “perhaps”.

When Leah gave Zilpah to Yaakov, she is not recorded as having said anything. This is because the rationale behind such an action was not so clear to her: she wasn’t entirely sure of what it was she hoped to accomplish. On the one hand, she already had competition in Rachel and Bilhah, and Bilhah’s introduction into the mix seemed not to have any effect. Yet the possibility of Zilpah conceiving in near future was also rather remote, as Rashi notes, since she was so young. When Gad is born, his name expresses her shock at such an unpredicted outcome (see Sforno on 30:11). She seems to have been unsure as to precisely what was going on. When Yissachar was born, she realized that her reward had not been because another competitor had been introduced, but rather because of her own magnanimity in giving up her maidservant to her husband. This represents a third way in which the giving over of a maidservant is effective in promoting fertility. For some strange reason, this method seems to have fallen out of favour in the medical profession.

[1] This is not quite clear cut: R’ Isaiah of Trani writes that her intention was to have Hagar give birth to a child, and have it named after her

Geoliteral Trivia

Question #1: How many letters of þe English alphabet do not appear in the word "Canada" or in þe names of any of þe Canadian providences?

Question #2: How many letters of the English alphabet do not appear in þe word "Canada" or in þe names of any of the Canadian providences or territories*?

Question #3: Which combination of Canadian national/providential/territorial names is þe smallest poßible group of names* (as measured by þe number of names, not words or letters) þat contains all of þe different letters appearing in all of þe Canadian national/providential/territorial names*?

Answer (v.i.) in Comments.

* Do not count þe word "territory" as part of þe name of þe Yukon or of Nunavut. Do, however, count þe word "territories" as part of þe name of "Northwest Territories."

From "The Devil's Dictionary"

Apostate, n. A leech who, having penetrated the shell of a turtle only to find the creature has long been dead, deems it expedient to form a new attachment to a fresh turtle.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Why don't you answer my stupid questions?"
"Well, I don't know - maybe your questions are a lot stupider."
"It's not my fault I sometimes forget what's five times zero!"

-HK, EM, HK, after EM had ignored an earlier question of HK, but answered another student's question

Ephraim Stulberg: What on Earth Are Duda'im?: Vayeitzei, 5766

The identity of the plants picked by Reuben for his mother, known in Hebrew as “duda’im”, has been the subject of much debate. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 99b) cites three explanations. Rav says they are “yavruchei”; Levi says they are “siglei”’; R’ Yonasan says “s’visqi”.

In B’reishis Rabbah (72:2), three opinions are also given. R’ Hiyya bar Abba agrees with Rav, translating it as “yavruchei”; R’ Yitshak says it is barley; and R’ Yehuda bar Simon says “mayyshin”. The Targums, Onkelos and Yonasan, also render it as “yavruchin”.

We thus have five translations of “duda’im”
1. Siglei - see Targum Yerushalmi B’midbar (21:12), where “siglei” appears to be some sort of shoot or reed. On Rashi’s definition, see below.
2. S’visqei - ?
3. S’orin - Barley
4. Mayyshin – see below
5. Yavruchei - see below

What follows is an analysis of what each of these plants might be:

1. Rashi, in his Torah commentary, equates “siglei” with the Arabic word “yasmin”, or jasmine. This definition is problematic, for the gemara (B’rakhos 43b) rules that the correct blessing to make upon smelling “siglei” is “borei isvei v’samim”; jasmine, conversely, is the translation Rashi himself gives for “samlaq”, which the very same gemara tells us requires a blessing “Borei atzei v’samim”. Clearly, jasmine and “siglei” cannot be the same thing. Moreover, in Tractate Shabbos (50b), Rashi translates “yasmin”, mentioned in the gemara as a type of ointment, as “sesame refuse”[1]. “Siglei” is translated by Rashi, in both B’rakhos and Shabbos, as “violet”. Thus, even aside from the contradiction in Rashi’s definitions, the gemara itself clearly distinguishes between “yasmin” and “siglei”.

In Rashi’s defence, Mizrahi writes that the text in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah is corrupt, and it should have read “samlaq” – which Rashi indeed identifies in B’rakhos as jasmine - instead of “siglei”. This suggestion is, I’m afraid, equally difficult to accept, for it is unlikely that Rashi would fail to cite any of the five opinions offered in the various rabbinic texts. Mizrahi’s other idea, that the “yasmin” of the Talmud is not the same as the Arabic “yasmin”, is pure speculation, as well as highly improbable, considering the close relationship between the Aramaic and Arabic languages.

The anonymous Tosafist, cited in Tosafos Ha-shalem on our verse (#5) equates all three of “siglei”, jasmine and violets, according to Rashi. Very strange.

4. Mayyish appears to be some sort of tree. In Tamid (29b), R’ Eliezer rules that wood from the mayyish tree may not be used as kindling on top of the Altar, since it is too moist, and will smoke.

5. Yavruhin, explain both Ibn Ezra and the Arukh, is also an Arabic word, which describes a pleasant smelling plant which is shaped not unlike the head and hands of a human. Radaq, in his Sefer Ha-shorashim, seems to agree, identifying it as mandragora in Latin, which is rendered in English as “mandrake”. The King James Bible also translates “duda’im” as “mandrakes”.

In a Tosafist commentary cited in Tosafos Ha-shalem (#2 on our verse), the anonymous writer notes that duda’im are “madrgi”. He observes that the word duda’im has a numerical value equivalent to that of the word “ke-adam”, or “like man”, indicating their physical resemblance. He also cites the popular myth ("Would curses kill, as doth the mandrake's groan" Shakespeare, King Henry Part 2 Act 3. Scene II) that one must plug ones’ ears when uprooting duda’im from the ground, for one who hears their shriek will die. (The perceptive reader will note that this is NOT the same as the properties exhibited by the mandrakes in the first Harry Potter book. Nishtana Ha-teva.)

Regarding the opinion of Ibn Ezra and the Arukh, it is crucial, it seems to me, to note that mandrakes do NOT have a pleasant aroma. Indeed, as Sir Thomas Browne writes in Chapter VII of his Enquiries into vulgar and common errors (1646):

For first from the comparison of one Text with another, whether the Mandrakes here mentioned, be the same plant which holds that name with us, there is some cause to doubt; the word is used in another place of Scripture, when the Church inviting her beloved into the fields, among the delightfull fruits of Grapes and Pomegranats, it is said, the Mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits. Now instead of a smell of delight, our Mandrakes afford a papaverous and unpleasant odour, whether in leafe or apple, as is discoverable in their simplicity or mixture; the same is also dubious from the different interpretations: for though the Septuagint and Josephus do render it the Apples of Mandrakes in this Text, yet in the other of the Canticles the Chaldy Paraphrase tearmeth it Balsame.[2] R. Solomon, as Drusius observeth, conceives it to be that plant the Arabians named Jesemin. Oleaster and Georgius Venetus the Lilly; and that the word Dudaim, may comprehend any plant that hath a good smell, resembleth a womans breast, and flourisheth in wheat harvest. Tremellius interprets the same for any amiable flowers of a pleasant and delightfull odour: but the Geneva Translators have been more wary then any; for although they retaine the word Mandrake in the Text, they in effect retract it in the Margine, wherein is set downe, The word in the originall is Dudaim, which is a kinde of fruit or flower unknowne…

Againe, it is not deducible from the Text or concurrent sentence of Comments, that Rachel had any such intention, and most do rest in the determination of Austine, that she desired them for rarity, pulchritude or suavity; nor is it probable she would have resigned her bed unto Leah, when at the same time she had obtained a medicine to fructifie her selfe, and therefore Drusius who hath expressely and favourably treated hereof, is so farre from conceding this intention, that he plainly concludeth, Hoc quo modo illic in mentem venerit conjicere nequeo; how this conceit fell into mens minds it cannot fall into mine, for the Scripture delivereth it not, nor can it be clearely deduced from the Text.

Thirdly, if Rachel had any such intention, yet had they no such effect, for she conceived not many yeares after of Joseph; whereas in the meane time Leah had three children, Isachar, Zebulon, and Dinah.

Lastly, although at that time they failed of this effect, yet is it mainly questionable whether they had any such vertue either in the opinions of those times or in their proper nature; that the opinion was popular in the land of Canaan it is improbable, and had Leah understood thus much she would not surely have parted with fruits of such a faculty, especially unto Rachel who was no friend unto her. As for its proper nature, the Ancients have generally esteemed it Narcotick or stupefactive, and it is to be found in the list of poysons set down by Dioscorides, Galen, Ætius, Ægineta, and severall Antidotes delivered by them against it. It was I confesse from good Antiquity, and in the dayes of Theophrastus accounted a philtre, or plant that conciliates affection, and so delivered by Dioscorides; and this intent might seem most probable, had they not been the wives of holy Jacob, had Rachel presented them unto him, and not requested them for her selfe.
Now what Dioscorides affirmeth in favour of this effect, that the graines of the Apples of Mandrakes mundifie the Matrix and applied with sulphur stop the fluxes of women, he overthrows again by qualities destructive unto conception; affirming also that the juice thereof purgeth upward like Hellebore, and applyed in pessaries provokes the menstruous flowes and procures abortion. Petrus Hispanus, or Pope John the twentieth speakes more directly in his Thesaurus pauperum; wherein among the receits of fæcundation, he experimentally commendeth the wine of Mandrakes given with Triphera Magna: but the soule of the medicine may lye in Triphera magna, an excellent composition, and for this effect commended by Nicolaus. And whereas Levinus Lemnius that eminent Physitian doth also concede this effect, it is from manifest causes and qualities elementall occasionally producing the same; for he imputeth the same unto the coldnesse of that simple, and is of opinion that in hot climates, and where the uterine parts exceed in heat, by the coldnesse hereof they may be reduced into a conceptive constitution, and Crasis accommodable unto generation; whereby indeed we will not deny the due and frequent use may proceed unto some effect, from whence notwithstanding we cannot inferre a fertilitating condition or property of fecundation: for in this way all vegetables do make fruitfull according unto the complexion of the Matrix; if that excell in heat, plants exceeding in cold do rectifie it; if it be cold, simples that are hot reduce it; if dry moist, if moist dry correct it; in which division all plants are comprehended; but to distinguish thus much is a point of Art, and beyond the method of Rachels or feminine Physicke...[3]

Ibn Ezra also cites the school of thought in which mandrake is a fertility drug, but refutes it for the same reason, i.e. that its “cold” nature is unconducive for such a result.

One of the Tosafists, cited in Tosafos Ha-shalem, explains that Rachel wanted the duda’im for their pleasant smell, which would naturally lead Ya’akov to be attracted to her; the implication is that they were not of any particular fertility value. Ramban concurs with this explanation, relating it to the word “dodi”, my beloved. The duda’im may have been an aphrodisiac, but they were not a fertility drug per se.

What then does the story of the duda’im teach us? The passage is cited by the Talmud (Sanhedrin 99b) as having attracted the ridicule of King Menashe, who would often poke fun at the seeming uselessness of the episode. Could the Torah not have expunged the entire episode? Such trivia seems to have no place in such a purportedly perfect book.

While the Talmud gives its own answer, it strikes me that the duda’im story is indicative of the religious outlooks of the two matriarchs, Rachel and Leah. Rachel desired the duda’im because she could not give birth. Whether or not they possessed any actual powers, she coveted them as a last resort. Her husband’s prayers had failed (Ramban), she had almost given up hope, having pretty much resigned herself to merely raising the children of her maidservant as her own, and she was desperate to conceive. As Ramban writes: “The root [of the mandrake] is the part which is said to increase fertility. And if this be true, it is a s’gula and not in their nature. But I have not seen this in any of the medical books that speak of such things.” Rachel turned to the mandrake as a charm, a quasi-magical s’gula. “Let my sister sleep with Ya’akov this one night; perhaps tomorrow I shall conceive with the help of the duda’im”, she reasoned.

While Rachel’s approach to the problem of her barrenness was to enlist her husband to pray for her and to buy s’gulos, Leah’s strategy to have more children was based on more traditional principles, namely the performance of good deeds in the hope that God would reward her piety. Thus, her motive in giving Ya’akov her maidservant was so that she could receive “my reward, because I gave my maidservant to my husband.” She pursues mitzvos rather than seeking out gimmick solutions, and she is praised by the sages for her proactive approach. Rachel eventually has a son herself, but only, the Torah tells us, after God remembered her. Her s’gula did her no good.

Returning to Sir Thomas Browne, there is an slightly cynical insight made by Samuel Johnson in his 1756 biography of Browne which is relevant to our discussion. Johnson observes:

Some of the most pleasing performances have been produced by learning and genius exercised upon subjects of little importance. It seems to have been, in all ages, the pride of wit, to shew how it could exalt the low, and amplify the little. To speak not inadequately of things really and naturally great, is a task not only difficult but disagreeable; because the writer is degraded in his own eyes by standing in comparison with his subject, to which he can hope to add nothing from his imagination: but it is a perpetual triumph of fancy to expand a scanty theme, to raise glittering ideas from obscure properties, and to produce to the world an object of wonder to which nature had contributed little.[4]

Johnson’s comment could well apply to this email, I suppose, and it is entirely possible that this sort of overwrought analysis of obscure biblical passages is what attracted Menashe’s mockery: the rabbinic tendency to build hulking midrashic edifices out of biblical twigs and pebbles, to read more into a passage than really is there – which appears to have reached its apogee with the advent of the Hasidic “vort - in which the meaning of the verse is completely obscured in the search for homiletic significance. Rav Hirsch also remarks upon this phenomenon in his comments on our verse, noting how “this business of the mandrakes has again and again been taken by commentators in a serious vein,” before proceeding to minimize the significance of the passage. All of which is to say that if you actually read to the end of this email, well, you may well have been wasting your time.

[1] One wonders whether, in these sorts of identifications, Rashi relied on the Arukh, with whose work he was clearly familiar (see Rashi on Shabbos 13b). The Arukh mentions that these sesame seeds, left over from the oil press, were subsequently soaked in jasmine, left to dry, ground into powder and then applied to the body as a sort of soap. Rashi appears to have left out the important details of the role of jasmine in the compound’s creation.
[2] Browne refers to the Targum on Shir Ha-shirim 7:14, which indeed translates “duda’im” as “bals’mon”.
[3] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudo77.html. On the general topic of mandrakes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandrake_(plant).
[4] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/browne_bio/jlife.html