Simcha

Happy birthday to Simcha Willig on his birthday.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Fraud, I mean, Freud, did more for English literature than he did for psychology. And he was German."

- RBC

From The Devil's Dictionary

Fiddle, n. An instrument to tickle human ears by friction of a horse's tail on the entrails of a cat.

Ephraim Stulberg on Terumah, 5764

As most of you know, I got married on Monday. I’m writing this from Ottawa, and I don’t have any books with me, so I hope everyone will bear with me, and not criticize me if I make any mistakes.

Parashas Terumah contains another of the five bi-directional verses, which we discussed in our e-mail relating to P’ Vayechi. In its description of the structure of the menorah, the Torah informs us that “on the [middle of the] menorah, there will be four cups, “meshukadim”, its knobs and flowers” (Sh’mos 25:34). The gemara (Yoma 52b) is not certain whether the word meshukadim refers to the cups, or to the knobs and flowers.

On the same page in Yoma, Tosafos write that what distinguishes the five verses cited in the gemara from other similar drashos, is that the ambiguous or multi-valent words in these verses change meanings depending on their placement in the Torah. Thus the word “arur”, for instance, which occurred in P’ Vayechi, could be either an adjective, or a subjunctive verb. But Tosafos are bothered by the fact that the word “meshukadim” seems not to share this property with the other four – it seems to maintain the same meaning either way. The Netziv, in his notes on the Mechilta (B’shalach (P’ Amalek)), suggests that the meaning of “meshukadim” also changes depending on whether it refers to the front or the back of the verse. He explains that if the adjective refers to the knobs and flowers, then we are forced to say, as indeed Onkelos does, that the word “meshukadim” refers to some sort of engraving art. But if we say that it was the cups, the “gevi’im”, that were meshukadim, then one might explain that the word is a reference to the almond-like shape of the cups: narrow at one end, widening and rounding at the other.

I was going to include a short essay dealing with a couple of aspects regarding the origins of the ta’amei hamikra, the cantillation notes, specifically on whether or not they were given to Moshe at Sinai. But that will have to wait for another week.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Am I the lonely man of faith?"

- RBP

From The Devil's Dictionary

Fib, n. A lie that has not cut its teeth. An habitual liar's nearest approach to the truth: the perigee of his eccentric orbit.

Slalom Race

In a slalom race, the skier must pass through about 20 "gates" in the fastest time. Well, it happened that a very Orthodox yeshiva in Montreal had an exceptional skier among its students. So fast that in practice, with tzitzis streaming out behind, he had beaten the world record several times. After first checking to make sure none of the men's slalom races would be on the Sabbath, he tried out for and made the Canadian Winter Olympic team. With his times in the trial heats, he was the favorite for an Olympic gold medal.

The day of the final, the crowd waited in anticipation. The French champion sped down the course in 38 seconds, the Swiss in 38.7 seconds, the German in 37.8 seconds, the Italian in 38.1 seconds. Then came the turn of the Canadian yeshiva bocher. The crowd waited, and waited....

Finally, after a full five minutes, he crossed the finish line. "What happened to you?" screamed his coach, when the skier finally arrived. Breathing hard, the exhausted yeshiva student replied, "All right, who's the wise guy who put a mezuzah on every gate?"

Airplanes

"There wasn't too much of a delay. We only had to change a spark plug and thirty pairs of shorts."

- Don Drysdale, on an emergency landing of the Dodgers' private jet

Does anybody know...

What ever happened to Steve Guttenberg?

Age

"I don't play like a forty-year-old, and I don't think like a forty-year-old. I guess that's because I'm forty-one."

- Pete Rose

Slow connection

You know what annoys me about this blog? Every time you load a page, or even reload a page that you've already seen and hasn't changed since then (such as when you press the Back button), the computer insists on reloading all the images from the Internet. I'm talking about all the little icons on the screen that are the same on every blog page, but the blog programmers don't let you recycle them. I resent the fact that so many website designers, including apparently the designers of this blog site, have no respect for those of use who still use dial-up Internet connections. It takes forever to load any blog page, and if I'm trying to download something else in the background at the same time, it gets delayed even more.

The Weekly Shtikle Blog

I just thought readers would want to know about a blog produced by our friend and fellow OTI graduate, featuring thoughts about the weekly parasha. Check it out:
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com/

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Like, what is that? Like, what is that?"

- DR

From The Devil's Dictionary

Female, n. One of the opposing, or unfair, sex.

The Maker, at Creation's birth,

With living things had stocked the earth.

From ekephants to bats and snails,

They all were good, for all were males.

But when the Devil came and saw

He said: "By Thine eternal law

Of growth, maturity, decay,

These all must quickly pass away

And leave untenanted the earth

Unless Thou dost establish birth"-

Then tucked his head beneath his wing

To laugh - he had no sleeve - the thing

With deviltry did so accord,

That he'd suggested to the Lord.

The Master pondered this advice,

Then shook and threw the fateful dice

Wherewith all matters here below

Are ordered and observed the throw;

Then bent His head in awful state,

Confirming the decree of Fate.

From every part of earth anew

The conscious dust consenting flew,

While rivers from their courses rolled

To make it plastic for the mould.

Enough collected (but no more,

For niggard Nature hoards her store)

He kneaded it to flexile clay,

While Nick unseen threw some away.

And then the various forms He cast,

Gross organs first and finer last;

No one at once evolved, but all

By even touches grew and small

Degrees advanced, till, shade by shade,

To match all living things He'd made

Females, complete in all their parts

Except (His clay gave out) the hearts.

"No matter," Satan cried; "with speed

I'll fetch the very hearts they need"-

So flew away and soon brought back

The number needed, in a sack.

That night earth rang with sounds of strife-

Ten million males each had a wife;

That night sweet Peace her pinions spread

O'er Hell - ten million devils dead!

G. J.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Stop making sense, Kaiserman!"

- SG

From The Devil's Dictionary

Feast, n. A festival. A religious celebration usually signalized by gluttony and drunkenness, frequently in honor of some holy person distinguished for abstemiousness. In the Roman Catholic Church feasts are "movable" and "immovable," but the celebrants are uniformly immovable until they are full. In their earliest development these entertainments took the form of feasts for the dead; such were held by the Greeks, under the name of Nemeseia, by the Aztecs and Peruvians, as in modern times they are popular with the Chinese; though it is believed that the ancient dead, like the modern, were light eaters. Among the many feasts of the Romans was the Novemdiale, which was held, according to Livy, whenever stones fell from heaven.

Ephraim Stulberg on Shekalim, 5765

P’ Sh’qalim can follow any of a number of different weekly Torah portions. In non-leap years, it can come out in either Mishpatim or T’ruma. In leap years, it will usually occur in P’ Vayakhel, though on rare occasions, such as this year, it falls out in P’ P’kudei.

You’ll have noticed from the above list, of course, that Sh’qalim never comes out during the week of Ki Sisa. This seems rather fortuitous, ofcourse, since it would be pretty boring to have to read the same thing over again. During a leap year, Ki Sisa will occur, at the very latest (in year type Zayin-Ches), on the 22nd of Adar I, which is too early to be eligible for Sh’qalim.

This is all very nice, you say, but who really cares? Why burden us with useless trivia? These are the objections of a normal person, and usually I would accept them wholeheartedly. And yet, I find it somewhat troubling that the gemara (Megillah 30a) should feel the need to discuss the question ofwhat to do if Sh’qalim does indeed occur during P’ Ki Sisa!

True, it may be that the gemara is discussing calendrical permutations of purely theoretical value, that never actually occurred in real life (see Otzar Ha-gaonim Rosh Hashana 20a). But considering that it is virtually impossible for such an event to occur, one may surely wonder why it chose to do so. Moreover, the commentaries (Ritva, Ran) state explicitly that although such a scenario is impossible given our own fixed calendar and Torah reading schedule, it was indeed a real possibility in the time of the gemara.

The key to unravelling this mystery, it seems to me, lies in the interesting practice of certain communities regarding P’ Mishpatim, which we noted several weeks ago. If Mishpatim is divided into two weeks in certain leap years, then Ki Sisa gets pushed back (i.e. later in the calendar) by seven days.

Now, the rule regarding the splitting of Mishpatim states that it is only done in leap years in which Rosh Hashana occurred on a Thursday. In such years, the latest that Ki Sisa can come out is on the 17th of Adar I (which is the case this year). If we had divided Mishpatim in half, we would have read Ki Sisa on the 24th. But that still doesn’t help us, because Adar I has thirty days, and so we would still read Sh’qalim the next week, on the 1st day of Adar II.

However, if we entertain a scenario in which Adar I has only 29 days, then things do work out. It is important to point out, however, that in such a case, Adar II would have to contain 30 days. Otherwise, Pesach would occur one day earlier than it does this year type (i.e. on Shabbos instead of Sunday), and the whole point of splitting Mishpatim – which was in order to be able to read P’ M’tzora on the Shabbos immediately preceding Pesach – would not be achieved.

This is the potential situation in which Sh’qalim can come outduring the week of Ki Sisa. The gemara also discusses a case in which Sh’qalim occurs during P’ T’tzaveh. This could only be achieved (in a non-leap year) if we were to combine two parshiyos in a year in which Rosh Hashana was on Thursday and each of Cheshvan and Kislev had 30 days. Alternatively, I suppose, if there were to be another split parasha in a leap year (Zayin-Ches) then you would also get T’tzaveh to be read the same week as Sh’qalim. Mi-shenichnas Adar II (But not Adar I!) Marbim Be-simcha.

Update: My Correspondence with Dan Gardner of The Ottawa Citizen

As some of you may know (and if you don't, all the better), I published yesterday my correspondence with Mr. Dan Gardner of The Ottawa Citizen - one email of mine, and one of his - regarding his column of one week ago today entitled "The trouble with all religions." My email to him, which I would now like to make into an open letter, was as follows, in italics:

Dear Mr. Gardner,

I read with interest your article entitled "The trouble with all religions," in this morning's paper. I agreed with some of the opinions expressed therein, and disagreed with others. I am all for allowing public criticism of religion, and I sympathize with Mr. Harris's views about religious moderates' self-delusion.

I contest, however, an underlying assumption of the article - namely, that religion is necessarily irrational and that, as you quote from Salman Rushdie, "All religions ... didn't get it right:" that at least some of the claims of every religion are factually incorrect. This assertion is incredibly broad and sweeping; it condemns simultaneously all of the thousands of religions in the world as preaching what is fundamentally falsehood. This assumption seems to be accepted dogmatically within the article; no supporting evidence is provided. I am not so sure that it is true.

Before I suggest very strongly that you read an essay, available on the internet, on the topic of the veracity of Judaism, I beg you not to roll your eyes and proceed to your next email on the assumption that the material I am recommending is just another religious crackpot's mediocre and desperate theological self-justification replete with shoddy evidence, specious argumentation and tautological nonsense. For it is not. It is written by Dr. Rabbi David Gottlieb, a former Professor of Philosophy at the renowned Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and using modern philosophical argumentation, it makes a powerful and compelling case for the veracity of the Jewish religion. It is entitled "Living Up to the Truth," and it can be found at http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/992. The most important sections, in addition to the forward and preface, are Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 6. Please note that, as the preface explains, the essay is actually a transcription of oral presentations; you may otherwise be put off by its somewhat informal tone and occasional stylistic errors. The content, however, is formidable. This work ought to be read and thoughtfully considered by anyone wishing to discount the truth of all religions in one fell swoop.

I would certainly be interested to read any thoughts you have on this matter, and I thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

He Who Must Not Be Named, Ottawa

About fifteen minutes ago, the following comment (which I have italicized) was posted:

Dan Gardner said...

Dear Gaby,

This is Dan Gardner.

I'd like to raise two things.

First, I received dozens of emails after publishing that column, many from people as thoughtful, earnest and sincere as you. Unlike many columnists, I try very hard to answer every email with at least something a little more substantive than "thanks for writing." If my email to you came off as abrupt, I am sorry, but that is because I was slogging away at them on my own free time (of which I have virtually none).

It is simply impossible for me to engage every person who writes in a lengthy and substantial discussion. I'd love to. I really would. But there's only so much time in the day.

Secondly, I would like to ask you a question. You wrote me a private email. I responded with a private email. Now you have published these emails on a blog. Do you think that is a fair and decent thing to do?

Sincerely,

Dan Gardner

I am assuming that this message is, indeed, from Mr. Gardner.

I apologise to Mr. Gardner for having published his email. I assumed there was nothing in it that would have embarrassed him or otherwise made him unhappy about its being shown publicly, but evidently I was mistaken. I have therefore removed it, as I believe he was implicitly asking me to do. (I assume I am authorised to leave his comment on the original post on this blog, since the comment was published for the public (such as it is) to see.)

Normally I would not even consider publishing a personal email, regardless of its content. However, in a case such as this one, I find my usual scruples are tempered by other considerations. Mr. Gardner has, of course, a forum in which to express his opinions - a forum read by over 135,000 people, in a hard-copy print medium, no less, which lends his words more credibility. If I, or if anybody else, disagrees with his opinions, we can try sending in a letter to the editor, and hope that it gets published in a more or less edited form, in which case we will have made our thoughts known to those who read the Letters section, with all the authority that goes along with having been chosen by the Letters editor as sufficiently interesting, or inflammatory, or diverse, or novel, or quirky. Certainly, within the pages of the Citizen, we cannot hope to have an intelligent debate on an equal footing with a regular Citizen columnist.

I attempted to circumvent this problem by appealing to Mr. Gardner directly (and privately), and asking him to look at material that I believe convincingly refutes the assertions he presented in the Citizen and considered so obvious that he did not even bother trying to justify them. I hoped he would investigate the matter, especially as he was only two or three mouse-clicks away from doing so, and that he would, at the very least, get back to me with a thoughtful reply, hopefully accompanied by a modification in position that might find its way into some of his future articles.

As I wrote in the original version of this post, I was disappointed, because while Mr. Gardner did reply (for which I give him credit), he did not seem to have checked the easily accessible source I had referred him to, nor, frankly, to be concerned at all with the issue I was raising. (In deference to his apparent wishes, I will not present here what he actually wrote; you will have to make do with my representation of it.) I felt that my concerns had received the standard brush-off from someone whose mind was already unalterably made up, and I saw no indication from Mr. Gardner's letter that further efforts on my part to discuss the matter with him would meet with a greater degree of interest or open-mindedness.

I therefore used the only public medium at my ready disposal - the internet - to have the closest thing I felt I could get to a fair debate with Mr. Gardner, by publishing my letter to him, and his response to me (his original article being a matter of public record, and under copyright - otherwise I would have considered publishing it, too). I could, of course, have simply criticised Mr. Gardner's article, without making any reference whatsoever to my correspondence with him. I wished, however, to present the discussion in as full a manner as I could, and I therefore included the reply Mr. Gardner had sent me, it being the only explanation I had of his perspective on the matter. I do not really understand why Mr. Gardner would have preferred me not to have published his response, but since those do seem to be his sentiments, I will respect them.

As for Mr. Gardner's statement that he does not have the time for thoughtful discussions with readers who write to him, I believe him, but I feel no resultant sympathy for his position. I consider the opinions he published in the mass media to be not only factually incorrect, but also destructive, and I do not believe that lack of time gives a journalist, or anybody else, carte blanche to write such material and to refuse even to investigate the possibility that he may have been in error.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

See QUOTI OF THE DAY post of Feb. 17, 2006. Same system, different code. This one is not as off-colour, but I will bow, hesitantly, to the sensibilities I divine among our female readership. והמפענח יבין.

"VQIK'L I UFETGH?"
"LGMFKQTNR KQIK RTEBL QICF?"

- KD, EF. UFETGHTO KIPBF; LR

From The Devil's Dictionary

Fashion, n. A despot whom the wise ridicule and obey.

Ephraim Stulberg on Mishpatim, 5766

I wrote the attached essay last year as a Grade 10 Jewish History assignment for my sister-in-law. We only got an eighty-something, but I happen to think it's a pretty good little piece. I recently found that R' Herschel Shachter makes a similar argument in one of the footnotes of his Nefesh Ha-rav, though he doesn't really develop the idea very much. Incidentally, as today is my anniversary, one can use the idea developed in the essay to prove why I can never win any arguments with my wife :)

Two Rabbis and an Oven

The argument between R’ Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and the Sages regarding the oven of “Achnai” is famous for number of reasons. From a narrative point of view, the story is captivating, as the reader is made aware of the occasionally epic quality of rabbinic debate. Perhaps more importantly, however, the episode contains within it the key to understanding several important theological concepts. Most obviously, it illustrates the notion of לא בשמים היא or, in the words of R’ Yehoshua ben Channaniah, אין משגיחין בבת קול. Of greater interest to the historian of rabbinic thought, however, is the question of R’ Eliezer’s understanding of the Torah’s rule of אחרי רבים להטות. Why did R’ Eliezer act the way he did, seemingly in the face of a clear Torah regulation? Why did he not yield to the decision of the majority? The solution to this question, as we shall see, can only be understood in light of R’ Eliezer’s affiliation with the School of Shammai (בית שמאי).

The story under discussion most likely took place not long after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 3828, and following the death of R’ Eliezer’s teacher, R’ Yochanan ben Zakkai, in 3833. Both R’ Eliezer and R’ Yehoshua, the chief antagonists in the dispute, had been disciples of the aforementioned R’ Yochanan,[1] and it seems unlikely that they would have argued so vehemently during his lifetime, without going to him to arbitrate their dispute. And yet when it came time to appoint a new נשיא following the coup against Rabban Gamliel II,[2] it seems that Rabbi Eliezer was not considered as a potential replacement; this would appear to indicate that he had already been excommunicated by that point.[3] Whatever the precise chronology of events, we do know that R’ Eliezer and R’ Yehoshua were תנאים. They were from the generation that achieved prominence in the period immediately following the destruction of the Second Temple.[4] Their opinions are recorded in dozens of משניות. Both were extremely great men – indeed, R’ Eliezer is actually referred to in many places as ר' אליעזר הגדול.

And yet, the two clashed over the status of a certain type of oven. R’ Eliezer said that it was not susceptible to the laws of טומאה, while the Sages disagreed. Rabbi Eliezer tried to reason with them, but they refused to see his side of things. He invoked various miracles, but they remained unfazed. Finally, he solicited the support of Hashem himself; and indeed, a Heavenly Voice descended, proclaiming the correctness of R’ Eliezer’s position. But R’ Yehoshua responded that Hashem had already asserted once that halacha is not to be determined by such voices, and that the Torah had already provided the Jewish people with the principle of majority rule in disputed matters of halacha. The gemara further relates that on that day, the Sages burnt all the foods that Rabbi Eliezer had declared to be טהורים, and excommunicated him.[5]

Why did R’ Eliezer disregard the rule of אחרי רבים להטות? The תלמוד ירושלמי in מועד קטן פ"ג ה"א asks this very question, and it answers that R’ Eliezer only acted the way he did after the Sages had burnt all of his טהרות in front of him. This, explains the ירושלמי, showed to R’ Eliezer that the Sages' argument was not based on an unbiased weighing of halachic evidence, but rather on a personal vendetta against him; at least, that’s how R’ Eliezer perceived things. The rule of אחרי רבים להטות, he argued, did therefore not apply to such ad hominem disputes.

The version of the incident, as recorded in the תלמוד בבלי at בבא מציעא נט, א, does not seem to bear out this explanation: it has R’ Eliezer invoking his miracles and behaving difficultly even before the Sages burnt his decisions. How, then, are we to understand R’ Eliezer’s actions according to the בבלי? I contend that it is only once we understand that R’ Eliezer was in fact a member of בית שמאי[6] that we can begin to understand his outlook on the affair of the תנור עכנאי.

The School of Shammai, it has been argued,[7] differed from that of Hillel (בית הלל) regarding their criteria of who was to be accepted as a legitimate party in an argument. The gemara[8] relates that regarding a certain halacha, בית שמאי acted in accordance with its own opinion, even though בית הלל, whose side generally constituted the majority, argued with them. They felt that the students of בית הלל, though more numerous, were on the whole of inferior quality, and that their own academy boasted more top-notch scholars.[9] They believed the rule of אחרי רבים להטות did not apply if the majority was less learned than the minority.[10]

Indeed, there are many authorities who have accepted this opinion ofבית שמאי as halachically valid. Rav Hai Gaon[11], Sefer Ha-Chinuch,[12] Me’iri[13] and RaShBaTZ[14] all write that if one of the sides is regarded as significantly smarter than the other, the rule of אחרי רבים להטות does not kick in, and it is as though the two groups never joined together in argument. Both may follow their own opinions in practice.

R’ Eliezer, it seems clear from the sources, also felt that he was a superior Torah scholar, greater than anyone in his generation.[15] He adopted the standards of בית שמאי, and refused (at least for some time) to recognize even the most gifted of students who were not from illustrious Jewish families. Thus, for thirteen years, R’ Akiva sat in on R’ Eliezer’s lectures, without being spoken to by his teacher, a policy for which the latter was criticized fiercely by R’ Yehoshua.[16] It is thus hardly surprising that he rejected the opinion of the Sages regarding the תנור עכנאי, even though they were in the majority. Next to him, they did not constitute a רבים that could override the opinion of so great a scholar as R’ Eliezer.

Why, then, did the Sages excommunicate R’ Eliezer? Did they not also recognize that he was much greater than they were? Of course, it may simply be that they did not agree with R’ Eliezer’s rather lofty opinion of himself. It is also possible, indeed likely, that they had decided that once the בת קול had cried out that the halacha was to follow the opinion of בית הלל,[17] this proved that in fact even when the minority opinion is smarter and more informed, we are forced to follow the majority. Indeed, Ramban[18] uses this incident of R’ Eliezer and the תנור עכנאי to modify the contention of R’ Hai Gaon and others that it is even acceptable for even a brilliant minority to disregard the stance of the majority. He distinguishes between the case of יחיד ורבים, in which we follow the majority regardless of the greatness of the individual, and a situation in which the minority consists of more than a single individual, in which the greater intelligence of the minority is taken into account, and offsets the numerical superiority of the majority.

It is perhaps relevant to note that there appears to be a slight contradiction in R’ Eliezer’s stance. On the one hand, he accepted the help of the Heavenly Voice; and yet he rejected another such voice, which declared that the halakha follows the view of the House of Hillel, in spite of the Shammaites' superior intelligence.[19]

Whatever the precise halacha may be, the incident clearly had a profound effect on R’ Eliezer’s life. He became cut off from his students, and much of his incredible knowledge was lost.[20] During his lifetime, none of his halachic opinions were accepted;[21] after his death, however, it was none other than R’ Yehoshua, his old antagonist, who defended several of R’ Eliezer’s opinions in an almost reverential tone: "אין משיבין את הארי לאחר מיתה".[22]

[1] אבות פ"ב מ"ח
[2] See ברכות כח.
[3] This implication seems rather clear from ידים פ"ד מ"ג, in which R’ Eliezer was absent from the בית המדרש on the day that R’ Elazar ben Azarya was elected.
[4]דף ע"ט:) סדר הדורות (
[5] רמב"ן (בבא מציעא נט:)explains that this was not merely a נדוי, but rather a more stringent form of ban, a חרם. For a thorough analysis of this issue, see the introduction of R’ David Luria to פרקי דר' אליעזר, entitled עמק הברכה.
[6] That Rabbi Eliezer was considered to have been a disciple of בית שמאי is clear from a number of sources. See ירושלמי תרומות (פ"ה ה"ד), ירושלמי ביצה (פ"ד ה"ז), ירושלמי סוכה (פ"ב ה"ח), ירושלמי נזיר (פ"ו הלכה י"א), ירושלמי שביעית (פ"ט ה"ו), as well as תוספות (שבת קל:, נדה ז:, ביצה לד:) and רבינו חננאל on שבת (קל:). This is the meaning of the gemara’s statement (שבת קל:, נדה ז:)that the halacha does not follow the opinion of R’ Eliezer because he was שמותי. See also ירושלמי סוטה (פ"א ה"א, ובמש"כ שם (א:) בשירי הקרבן). In all these places the gemara takes it for granted that R’ Eliezer followed the School of Shammai. The fact that this is true is also visible from נדרים עד..
[7]See ר' ראובן מרגליות, יסוד המשנה ועריכתה: סקירה כללית על השתלשלותה מימות אנשי כנסת הגדולה עד חתימתה, ותכנית סדורה (מהדורה שלישית, תרצ"ג) , where he develops this argument in considerable depth.
[8] יבמות יד.
[9] It had been the policy of בית שמאי to accept only those who were “חכם, עניו ,ובן אבות” (אבות דר' נתן, סוף פ"ב), while בית הלל were decidedly less picky.
[10] This way of understanding things is useful in understanding several initially confusing passages in the Gemara, such as the 18 Decreesמסכת שבת פרק א',.
[11] Cited in חידושי רמב"ן (סנהדרין פרק ד')
[12] מצוה ע"ח
[13] יבמות יד.
[14] מגן אבות (פ"ד מ"ט)
[15] See סנהדרין סח.
[16] ירושלמי פסחים (פ"ו ה"ג). The work שלשלת הקבלה also relates R’ Eliezer’s shortness with prospective students to his background as a disciple of בית שמאי. See the story related in בראשית רבה (ע' ה'), which, according to (דף יג.) שלשלת הקבלה, illustrates the fact that Rabbi Eliezer as "רגזן כבית שמאי", while Rabbi Yehoshua was "עניו כהלל".
[17] See ערובין יג:
[18]) חידושי רמב"ן (סנהדרין פרק ד'
[19] Tosafos, in a number of places (e.g. B’rakhos 52a), explain that the Heavenly Voice was only adhered to when it came to tipping the scales in favour of בית הלל, since they were in any case a majority, and thus the Voice was merely upholding the basic meaning of the verse, אחרי רבים להטות; when it came to R’ Eliezer’s argument, the Voice could not establish a new reading of the verse and limit it to a scenario in which the litigants are of equal stature.
[20] סנהדרין סח.
[21] See comments of Rashi on פסחים טו.
[22] See נדה ז:, גיטין פג..

Ephraim Stulberg on Mishpatim, 5765

Ari Brodsky’s “How is this Year Different from all other Years?” has created quite a stir in Toronto, and has been met with warm approval in many quarters. Thanks to it, many of you are no doubt aware that this year [5765] contains no double parshiyos. In this email, I intend to show that in some regards, this is simply not the case.

This leap-year’s “type” is abbreviated as Hay-Chet-Aleph, which means that Rosh Hashanah began on Wednesday evening, both Cheshvan and Kislev had only 29 days (“chaseir”), and Pesach will start on Saturday night. This means that we have the maximum amount of Shabbasos that do not occur on Yom Tov, and therefore there is no need for any double parshiyos.

If you’ve ever read Sefer Ha-chinuch – or really, just the relevant section of it – you’ll notice a funny thing. What we know as P’ Mishpatim is actually divided in half, the second section beginning with the verse “Im kesef talveh es ami”. The reason for this seems to be as follows: In Barcelona, where the Chinuch’s author lived, the custom was to read P’ Metzora right before Pesach (in ALL leap years). Our custom is to read Metzora right before Pesach in most leap years, the exceptions being Hay-Chet-Aleph and Hay-Shin-Gimmel, in which we read P’ Acharei Mos. In those year types there are 29 Shabbasos between Simchas Torah and Pesach, and P’ Metzora is the 28th parasha in the Torah. Obviously, for the Barcelonan custom to be practicable, one of our standard parshiyos needs to be divided in two in order to have Metzora occur in the 29th Shabbos, and the one chosen is Mishpatim.

This is the bare presentation of what we do, and what the Barcelonans used to do (the footnote in my edition of Minchas Chinuch says that this is still the custom in Algeria and Tunisia, though I wasn’t aware that there were still Jews living there). The more interesting question is, why? Abudarham writes that the reason we are careful to have Metzora (or Tzav in non-leap years) as the final parasha read before Pesach is that both those parshiyos talk about the preparation of utensils, an appropriate topic in times when not everyone had multiple sets of dishes and Pesach kitchens. I am not aware of any particular reason why we should read Acharei Mos before Pesach, and it seems that this is just something which we do because there is no way to get around it, save for breaking up a parasha.

At any rate, of course, since the Barcelonans break up Mishpatim, they must necessarily combine two parshiyos later on in the year. Thus according to the Barcelonans, this year indeed does contain a double-parasha. (Not sure where)

Age

"I don't know how old I am because the goat ate the Bible that had my birth certificate in it. The goat lived to be twenty-seven."

- Satchel Paige

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Try to put it back in an orderly fashion, that it will not look like after the French Revolution."

- RBP, re. boys returning Humashim

From The Devil's Dictionary

Famous, adj. Conspicuously miserable.

Where's hevnsangel19?

The Investigative Reporter #2: Case Closed

For those of you who are not familiar with the case, see my previous post.

A little sleep seems to have done the trick. I'm not sure how I missed the meshing of all the details in the first place, disgraceful. Anyhow, it's plainly obvious that Crow was suffering a heart attack which started the whole argument. Matthews and Crow realized that Crow's only chance for survival was immediate bypass surgery. Both friends also agreed that they needed to improvise. Neither of them were doctors and they had no medical instruments. So they decided that an empty roll of toilet paper could be used to create a bypass for the heart. The argument they had wasn't over the empty roll of toilet paper, but it was over how to make the initial incisions. Matthews felt that he should be the one to start the surgery and that he should use a sledgehammer and a claw hammer, while Crow was adamant that he begin the surgery on himself and that a rifle was the best method. Matthews must have convinced Crow, because he proceeded, unsuccessfully I might add, with the surgery.

These men were roommates, and were aged 56 and 58. They were best friends and had been rommies for decades. Now obviously, they weren't the brightest minds out there. I mean while attempting open heart surgery in the confines of your own home with a sledgehammer, clawhammer and/or rifle and using an empty roll of toilet paper for the heart bypass may seem like a good idea, it's not really the most medically accepted way of doing things. And that my friends is the only mistake or "crime" that Matthews and Crow committed.

Before I sign off on this one, I know you're itching to know what evidence I have that suggests that Crow and Matthews were best friends. It's quite simple, in the small town of Moss Bluff
everybody knows each other. The only reason the coroner had to indentify the deceased through fingerprints ten times was out of shock, he couldn't believe that all the signs pointed to Matthews killing Crow. The coroner knew they were best friends, and he was so shocked to see Matthews bring in Crow in his state that he just had to make sure it was really Crow.

I guess I have to apologize to Capt. Jimmy Pogue for suggesting that his thoroughness would be detrimental to this case, when in fact it was one of the key elements in discovering the truth.

The Investigative Reporter #2

Today's news item concerns murder (oh and I found the article here).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIAMI (Reuters) - A Florida man has confessed to bludgeoning his roommate to death with a sledgehammer handle and a claw hammer after an argument that started over an empty roll of toilet paper, authorities said on Tuesday.

Franklin Paul Crow, 56, was arrested early on Monday and later charged with murder in the beating death of 58-year-old Kenneth Matthews in the small town of Moss Bluff, according to the Marion County Sheriff's Office.

Capt. Jimmy Pogue said Crow told investigators he grabbed the sledgehammer and claw hammer after Matthews, who rented the mobile home where the two lived, armed himself with a rifle during their altercation. He later confessed to using the work tools to strike Matthews, who was so badly beaten he had to be identified through fingerprints, about 10 times, Pogue said.

"There were only two people there, Mr. Crow and Mr. Matthews, and unfortunately Mr. Matthews is deceased, so we pretty much just have to go by what Mr. Crow says," Pogue said. "He says that the argument started over an empty roll of toilet paper." Crow was being held in the Marion County jail without bond. His court-appointed lawyer could not be reached for immediate comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I'm following what happened. What we do know is that the argument started over an empty roll of toilet paper. My question is who wanted the empty roll of toilet paper and why did they want it? Quite frankly Tommy and I throw out all of our empty rolls of toilet paper, so what made their empty rolls of toilet paper so special?

Also, Matthews was the dude with the rifle, how exactly did he end up dead? Secondly, why exactly did Crow need both a sledgehammer and claw hammer to kill his roommate? Did he have one in each hand? Why didn't Matthews just shoot Crow?

I think I'm going to have to sleep on this one. I hope to be able to answer these questions in the near future, in the mean time feel free to suggest any plausible scenarios.

However I do fully expect Capt. Jimmy Pogue of the Marion County Sheriff's Office to solve this crime, the only question is: Will he solve it sometime in the next century? The man is probably a little too thorough, don't you think identifing the deceased 10 times through fingerprinting is a little too exhaustive? Pogue has got to learn to trust his instincts, otherwise he'll never survive in this business.

Arghhh!

I can't seem to solve this sudoku (soduku?) ! Any help would be much appreciated.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Deal with it."

- EW

From The Devil's Dictionary

Fairy, n. A creature, variously fashioned and endowed, that formerly inhabited the meadows and forests. It was nocturnal in its habits, and somewhat addicted to dancing and the theft of children. The fairies are now believed by naturalists to be extinct, though a clergyman of the Church of England saw three near Colchester as lately as 1855, while passing through a park after dining with the lord of the manor. The sight greatly staggered him, and he was so affected that his account of it was incoherent. In the year 1807 a troop of fairies visited a wood near Aix and carried off the daughter of a peasant, who had been seen to enter it with a bundle of clothing. The son of a wealthy bourgeois disappeared about the same time, but afterward returned. He had seen the abduction and been in pursuit of the fairies. Justinian Gaux, a writer of the fourteenth century, avers that so great is the fairies' power of transformation that he saw one change itself into two opposing armies and fight a battle with great slaughter, and that the next day, after it had resumed its original shape and gone away, there were seven hundred bodies of the slain which the villagers had to bury. He does not say if any of the wounded recovered. In the time of Henry III, of England, a law was made which prescribed the death penalty for "Kyllinge, wowndynge, or mamynge" a fairy, and it was universally respected.

Mixed Metaphors

Okay, some of you should be able to come up with some good ones of these, but I won't count my chickens before they come home to roost.

"If Casey Stengel were alive today, he'd be rolling in his grave." (Yogi Berra)

Belated Happy Birthday

To Aaron Kaiserman on his 22nd birthday. Nice goatee.

The Orthodoxy Test #14: Female Orthodox Rabbis

Female Orthodox Rabbis

a) are totally impossible and an oxymoron
b) couldn't happen because any woman who wants this must have an agenda
c) might in theory be possible but will never happen for practical reasons
d) may happen some day in the future, but not in my lifetime
e) are something we should press hard to create
f) Leave this question out of my results

Some of you may be surprised (outraged?) by my having chosen (c).

The first thing we need to do is to define "rabbi". (Perhaps "orthodox" needs to be defined, too, but I'll risk assuming we're all operating with more or less the same definition of it. And I hope it's not necessary to define "female".) One could argue that there are female orthodox rabbis even now: there are certainly learned orthodox women who write books about Judaism, teach it, travel extensively to lecture about it, are consulted by other Jews for their advice in matters that relate to religion, engage in kiruv, etc. Many male rabbis do almost exactly the same thing (or less), and their own education may not differ very much either. But I don't think that that's what the question means. The question is probably intended to have the answerer consider two specific functions of rabbis that orthodox women really do not perform: serving as a congregational/pulpit rabbi, and acting as a posek. (Note: Some orthodox women certainly do act as poskot of a certain type; I know for a fact that many learned orthodox women will often field questions from their less learned peers about kashrus questions, or niddah questions, or Shabbat questions, etc., the answers to which they know because they are well-read and are familiar with the halachos that they need to know in order to practise Judaism properly. That's not the type of posek I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about the type of posek to whom people turn for rulings on complex issues that have never been ruled on before: a Rav Moshe Feinstein- or Rav Elyashiv- or Rav Hershel Schachter-type posek (covered my bases, didn't I?).)

(Real) Judaism has survived for thousands of years without (any significant number of) female rabbis, and seems to be continuing to do all right despite the modern phenomenon of feminism, so I don't see why (e) should be correct.

The difference between (c) and (d) is purely an issue of fortune-telling. My instinct is that there will never be female orthodox rabbis of the type described, even after I die (***). We're now in the year 5766. If Mashiach is supposed to come by the year 6000, that only leaves about 234 (Can't have a better number than that!) years for orthodoxy to be persuaded to accept and implement the notion that female rabbis are an okay idea. (Once Mashiach comes, all bets are off, as far as I'm concerned.) Is it conceivable that such a thing may happen? I think it is. Is it likely? I think it's not. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone prove otherwise? I doubt it. Orthodoxy is, after all, orthodox; we're a pretty traditional and inflexible lot, and rightly so: we're responsible for preserving something that it is very important to preserve properly and faithfully. I don't think female rabbis are in the cards (although if they were, my vote would be for the Queen of Spades).

As for (a): I have read, in very traditional, "frum" books, that at least according to some great Jewish authorities, (some) women may learn Gemara; and some of them, I fully believe, are smart enough to become talmidot chachamim of the finest calibre. Would such a woman, having achieved such a level of scholarship, not have a duty to paskan? And consider Devorah the prophetess. If there had been shuls of the modern type in her day, might she not have played the role (with a few alterations) of congregational rabbi? I'm not the first one to point out that many or most pulpit rabbis don't do very much, if anything, that a woman isn't allowed to do; indeed, most pulpit-rabbi tasks are ones that some orthodox - even yeshivish - women already do. So is it "totally impossible"? I don't think so. An oxymoron? I don't think our terms are even tightly enough defined for the word to be applicable.

And I think (b) is a silly answer, because it assumes that since certain ambitions tend currently to be associated with a particular (let us assume, unacceptably feminist) agenda, this association will always exist, and will exist in every single case. There have been examples in Jewish history of very scholarly, very devout, and very unsubversive women who have been Talmudic scholars or leaders of Jewry. It would be, I think, a combination of short-sightedness, narrow-mindedness, axe-grinding, blind acceptance of stereotyping and/or pure lack of imagination that would lead someone to assume it impossible for this ever to happen again, just because in our particular era, most (let us assume) orthodox women who want to be/wish they could be rabbis possess that desire because they feel that orthodox Judaism, in its present state, gives them a raw deal, and they want to change things/stir the pot/make a statement.

Orthodoxy Test Comments

Please note that a friend of ours has relatively recently added comments to several of the Orthodoxy Test articles that have been posted here through January and February.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I'm a whole slab above the rest."

- HK

From The Devil's Dictionary

Experience, n. The wisdom that enables us to recognize as an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced.

To one who, journeying through night and fog,
Is mired neck-deep in an unwholesome bog,
Experience, like the rising of the dawn,
Reveals the paths that he should not have gone.

Joel Frad Bink.

Homographs

Here's a new word list I think might be interesting. What follow are words that are spelled the same but change meaning depending on their pronunciation, emphasis being a common variable in pronunciation. For example, "pervert" is a noun, whereas "pervert" is a verb.

Decrease, Does, Dove, Increase, Lead, Pervert, Read, Recall, Recreate, Recreation, Redo, Repeat, Sewer, Sow, Tear, Wind

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Hothead, n. One whose mouth is big enough to accommodate his foot.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Neighbourhood, n. Formerly, the area in which one resided, and with whose inhabitants one was generally acquainted. More recently, the area in which one resides, and with whose inhabitants' cars one's car is acquainted.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Islam, n. A religion whose adherents were, a millenium ago, incited and humiliated until they had no choice but to attack and conquer all of North Africa, the Middle East and south-central Asia.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Value, n. A principle or moral standard. Western democracies condemn governmental imposition of values as being in contravention of the values their governments impose.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Aaron's activities range from napping to wildly impractical ideas to studied indifference to occasional participation."

- SG, written on AK's mid-term report

From The Devil's Dictionary

Exile, n. One who serves his country by residing abroad, yet is not an ambassador.

Age

"Girls used to come up to me and say, 'My sister loves you.' Now they say, 'My mother loves you.'"

- Lee Mazzilli

Captain's Log V

Poster's Note: This one is exciting 'cause there's a secret reference to me! See if you can find it.
Captain's Log U is last week's, which you can figure out from the Tu B'shvat reference.


Date: Somebody's Almost 22 Birthday (wink wink)

For those of you who are interested, by the way, this is being written at the bottom of a locked cabniet stuck in a dissused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.

So it's been one crazy hectic week, starting with Monday.




......





Then came Tuesday, when things actually began to happen. Somebody in the dorms got engaged. Big party, with lots of dancing and funness. We was all quite tired by the end, but it was a wonderful night, extremely enjoyable and something that's happening again tommorow (for those who couldn't make it the first time).

Then wednesday was the same as any other, except this time it happened to be February 15. Yay.

Thursday, however, was the long awaited and much celebrated trip to Ein Gedi/ Massada. wanna hear two words that I've come to loathe since Thursday?

Flash Floods.

We didn't go. Instead, we went ot the Diaspora Museum, which, I can testify to this, nobody on the bus wanted to go to. Three hours of halls and mini houses in glass boxes. Wow. Exciting. Thrills. Chills (the air conditioning was on for some reason).

But it twasn't all bad. We went to Port Jaffo after and stood around watching the Med splash the walls and getting people wet as it did so (myself included). That was pretty much all we did there.

Oh, and somebvody bought a dagger (I checked, it wasn't sharp).

Then we went back to the dorms where I feel asleep for twelve hours. Quality quality sleep, I gotta say.

Best part of the week had to have been Saturday morning, when I woke up and wondered to myself: "Did the awsomely awsome thing I was just thinking about just happen or was it a dream?" (sadly, it was a dream, but it was still really really awsomely aswome.)

Oh! I forgot! On Monday, I gorged myself on fruit. There was fruit salad for lunch and I just ate. A heaping bolws worth. Scrumptious. MMMMMMMMMMM, fruit salad.

Salavating because of pleasent thoughts,

Zev Fox

Captain's Log U

Date: The Day Before International Tree-Huggers Day

Yup! It's the day of trees tommorow! The day we gorge ourselves on fruit that we wouldn't normally eat because on a regular day we find them repulsive! Such as figs! Or dates! Yay!

That aside, I'd like to speak seriously for a moment. Trees are a necessity to a happy, healthy environment. Without trees (those of you who know me will see where this is going), there would be no oxygen to breathe. we would all choke and die from carbon dioxide and cigarette smoke.

Every year, countless tress are cut down, destroying egosystems and wildlife. And I, for one, have very little against cutting down trees and killing people. Its the animals I'm concerned about! Shame on you loggers for killing those harmless critters! (except the insects. Kill as many of them as you want).

Now, in order to combat this threat, I am asking all of you to send me money. Then, send this e-mail to four people and ask them to send you money and send the e-mail to four people. Every time you get sent money, you send half back to me and I will make sure it goes to a charity foundation. This is called a pyramid sche....I mean a charity drive. To save the forests. And the animals (but not the bugs).

Serious moment aside, its time to tell y'all about the duststorm we had on Wednesday. So. Cool. I mean, it was chilly, but it was supper nifty. Blocked out the sun adn was windy and made everything feel gritty. And if you opened up your eyes wide enough, tou got dust in them and it hurt. It was so cool.

I mentioned I was getting a new brigmate before. Well, last Sunday night, when I returned to my cell, I found that he was gone. Seems he didn't like it here, so he left. Can't blame the poor guy either. I'd leave to if the guy I had to share a room with was total egocentric. (I WAS nice to him, in case any of you peoples thought otherwise).

Hike in Massada and Ein Gedi this Thursday. That should be awsome, because we're going to get to swim. And swimming is always fun. Unless the water is salty. In which case it hurts. A lot.

Getting a table was once of the best ideas I ever had. Of course, for the first week, it turned into a dumping ground for my FOLDED laundry. BUt now it's clean again and work-at-able. So off I go to work and do such fun things on it as fall asleep! Hurrah!

Finishing the Death Gate Cycle (highly recommended) this week,

Zev Fox

Ephraim Stulberg on Mishpatim, 5764

In this week's parasha, we are notified of a pair of commandments regarding the three festivals of Pesach, Shavuos and Succos. The Torah tells us that on these three occasions, we are obligated to go to the Temple to be seen before Hashem (Sh'mos 23:17), and we are commanded not to show up empty-handed; rather, we must bring olah offerings (24:14). The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 489) poses the question of whether these two commandments are linked. He wonders whether someone who was exempt from the commandment of going up to the Temple, but who nonetheless did so, is thereby obligated not to show up without bringing a sacrifice. Based on a proof from the Jerusalem Talmud, which states that women are exempt from the commandment to bring a sacrifice, but are nonetheless obligated to appear in the Temple in the presence of Hashem (see Yerushalmi Chaggigah 1:1, and Tosafos on 2a in the Bavli). Thus, he concludes, if someone who is obligated in the positive commandment of showing up is nonetheless exempt from the negative commandment of showing up sans an offering, then, a fortiori, someone who was exempt from even showing up would also be exempt from bringing a sacrifice. While there is certainly room to disagree with this opinion, such a discussion would be of no use to anyone unfamiliar with the Talmudic sources. But this Minchas Chinuch does provide us with an entry into the more general discussion of the linkages between these two commandments. (I should note that the S'fas Emes, in his novellae on Chaggigah 2a, seems to argue with the Minchas Chinuch, stating that if one showed up in the Temple without a sacrifice, even if one did not have to show up, this would constitute a violation of the negative commandment.)

The question posed by the Minchas Chinuch is one of several which could be asked along these lines. Is the negative commandment merely a detail of the positive one, or does it have its own existence? From this basic issue sprout several subsidiary uncertainties. Can one fulfill the positive commandment of showing up, without also avoiding the negative commandment by bringing a sacrifice? Or is the sacrifice an essential element of fulfilling the positive commandment? Rambam (Laws of Chaggigah 1:1), seems to imply that the injunction against showing up empty-handed is a detail of a more general positive commandment to show up, and that one cannot fulfill the positive mitzvah while simultaneously violating the negative one (see Turei Even on Chaggigah 2a, as well as Or Sameach). Conversely, can one send an olah offering to the Temple via a messenger before one arrives, or does the negative prohibition only begin once one shows up? Minchas Chinuch discussed whether one can be obligated to avoid the negative commandment even though one is exempt from the positive one; and the Yerushalmi clearly states that one can also be obligated to perform only the positive commandment, while exempted from the negative. Indeed, the opinion of the Yerushalmi is more than a little puzzling, since most of the exemptions granted by the Torah to people of various sorts are listed by the positive commandment, not the negative.

When one looks to the Torah texts, one becomes even more confused. In both P' Mishpatim and later on in P' Ki Sisa (Sh'mos 34:20-23), the negative commandment is recorded several verses prior to the positive: there seems to be no indication at all that the negative is linked with the positive in any way, nor that it is merely a detail of the general commandment of showing up. Yet in P' Re'eh (D'varim 16:16), the commandments are listed together in the same verse, with the negative seeming to appear as a subordinate clause to the positive. My own feeling is that the negative is only a detail of the positive, and that it has no independent existence. But the proof for this would be rather too lengthy to record here, and the reader should consider the points raised above as being entirely open for debate.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Lenin's tomb is a communist plot."

- RBC

From The Devil's Dictionary

Exhort, v.t. In religious affairs, to put the conscience of another upon the spit and roast it to a nut-brown discomfort.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Don't give me such a dirty look; I didn't do anything bad."

- RBP

From The Devil's Dictionary

Executive, n. An officer of the Government, whose duty it is to enforce the wishes of the legislative power until such time as the judicial department shall be pleased to pronounce them invalid and of no effect. Following is an extract from an old book entitled, The Lunarian Astonished - Pfeiffer & Co., Boston, 1803:

LUNARIAN: Then when your Congress has passed a law it goes directly to the Supreme Court in order that it may at once be known whether it is constitutional?

TERRESTRIAN: O no; it does not require the approval of the Supreme Court until having perhaps been enforced for many years somebody objects to its operation against himself - I mean his client. The President, if he approves it, begins to execute it at once.

LUNARIAN: Ah, the executive power is a part of the legislative. Do your policemen also have to approve the local ordinances that they enforce?

TERRESTRIAN: Not yet - at least not in their character of constables. Generally speaking, though, all laws require the approval of those whom they are intended to restrain.

LUNARIAN: I see. The death warrant is not valid until signed by the murderer.

TERRESTRIAN: My friend, you put it too strongly; we are not so consistent.

LUNARIAN: But this system of maintaining an expensive judicial machinery to pass upon the validity of laws only after they have long been executed, and then only when brought before the court by some private person - does it not cause great confusion?

TERRESTRIAN: It does.

LUNARIAN: Why then should not your laws, previously to being executed, be validated, not by the signature of your President, but by that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

TERRESTRIAN: There is no precedent for any such course.

LUNARIAN: Precedent. What is that?

TERRESTRIAN: It has been defined by five hundred lawyers in three volumes each. So how can anyone know?

Ephraim Stulberg on Yitro, 5766: Standing for the Ten Commandments

Halakha is, on a certain level, highly stylistic; different rabbis adopt different approaches in considering the halakhic queries sent their way. While such an assertion will no doubt seem banal to anyone who has ever studied rabbinic literature to any degree, perhaps a concrete example of this phenomenon will nonetheless be of benefit not only the uninitiated, but also those more seasoned scholars who (it is hoped!) at least periodically find occasion to read these dispatches.

I have never been to a synagogue in which the custom is to remain seated during the reading of the Ten Commandments. And yet the suspect legitimacy of his very practice is one which has engaged the pens of more than a few rabbis over the centuries.

The objection raised by those who would prefer to outlaw the custom of rising for the Decalogue is that to do so would, at least ostensibly, give the sense of a prioritization of one portion of the Torah over all others. The gemara (B’rakhos 12a) relates that a proposal to add the Ten Commandments to the daily prayer service outside the Temple – they had always been part of the morning prayers within the Temple area – was scuttled due to the “claims of the heretics”. To showcase the Ten Commandments in such a central way would have reinforced the notion of those (I assume the reference here is to the Pauline Christians) who rejected most of the other legal sections of the Torah.

There are those who have attempted to extend this general discomfort with spotlighting the Decalogue to other areas. Concerning the custom of standing specifically for that segment of the Torah reading, Rambam writes in one of his responsa that such a practice lends credence to the heretics, and ought to be discouraged. He adds that although various communities in Babylon had adopted the custom, this was hardly a justification for others to follow such improper practices.

In modern times, three of the twentieth century’s most historically significant rabbis (though only two of them appear to have “gedolim stickers” – I’ll leave you to guess which ones they are) have weighed in on this very issue. Each of them analyzes the issue in his own distinctive style; and yet, in the end, their conclusions are all remarkably similar and uncontroversial.

R’ Ovadia Yosef, in his responsa Y’have Da’at (I:29 and VI:8), gives prominence of place to the Rambam. He, characteristically, cites about fifteen other rabbis, most of whose names have been forgotten by all but the most avid bibliographers, and briefly records their views, yea or nay, before returning to the opinion of the Rambam and ruling that it is really forbidden to stand. He moderates the Rambam’s black-and-white ruling somewhat, and suggests that while if one can convince the congregation to switch their custom then all the better; but that in any case one should avoid causing a disturbance, and if one would appear conspicuous by sitting down, then it would be better to stand for the entire Torah reading that week, or at least the entire aliya.

R’ Yosef Dov Soloveitchik’s views are recorded in the journal Masorah (v. 1, which is available online here: http://oukosher.org/index.php/kosher/mesorah/ ). He cites the objection of the Rambam, and then proceeds to suggest a distinction in the different types of Torah readings. Generally speaking, the public Torah reading is meant as a public Torah learning; the purpose is purely instructive, seeking to inject a bit of Jewish knowledge into the lives of the unwashed masses (see Mekhilta on B’shalah). The reading of the Decalogue, when read in the “higher cantillation”, serves a different purpose: it is meant to commemorate and reenact the historical events that took place around Mount Sinai. Each commandment is made into its own “verse”, and the people all “stand at the foot of the mountain”, recreating one of the epochal moments in Jewish history. The Ten Commandments are of no greater or lesser importance within the overall framework of Torah observance and Torah study, no more binding on every Jew than the most obscure detail of Leviticus; and thus if read in the “lower cantillation”, no special treatment ought to be awarded them. But when we stand and listen to the reader chant the Ten Commandments using the “higher cantillation”, it is not to endow them with a greater degree of importance or legitimacy, but merely to reprise an ancient scene. (This distinction is also alluded to by several of the other authorities who allow standing; but none of them formulates it in quite the same Brisker terminology.) This is all by way of apologetic, of course, for the Soloveitchik custom was to reject the “higher cantillation” altogether, as an improper amalgamation of the Torah’s verses.

R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, O.C. IV:22) was asked about the custom as well. He appears to have been characteristically unaware of this obscure responsum of Rambam, and he cites none of the other earlier authorities who have dealt with the issue. He offers a brief discussion, but is generally unimpressed with the logic of his correspondent, who wished to extend the prohibition of incorporating the Decalogue into the daily prayers to all public emphases of their importance. Rav Moshe adds that such argumentations have no power to overturn an established custom, and that even one who wishes to be strict, as it were, is not allowed to ostentatiously deviate from the communal practice.

Thus according to all three opinions, the prevalent custom is decisive; they vary only in the extent to which they advise circumventing the whole problem altogether.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

Today's QUOTI is so off-colour that I will publish it only in code. This is the standard simple code where each code-letter (A, B, C, ... , Z) represents consistently a certain letter in the original text (the QUOTI). So for example, the first word of the QUOTI begins and ends with the same letter, but that letter is not necessarily R. The entire QUOTI has been capitalized for codification purposes, but the original punctuation has been preserved. I have omitted the initials of the QUOTIee, but as anyone can comment on this post, that individual may take credit for his or her contribution in a comment if he or she so desires.

"RCMGR, OMOI GY PLK QCIF FL SGMO BO ALBO, PLKE BLKFW GAI'F UGS OILKSW."

From The Devil's Dictionary

Exception, n. A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "Exceptio probat regulam" means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

Ephraim Stulberg on Yitro, 5765

Not too much is known about Yisro. When he came to live with the Jews, when he left, and what he did after that are subjects about which much has been written, and I don’t propose to write about them now. Instead, I shall focus on another aspect of Yisro’s biography, namely his career before he encountered Moshe.

Yisro is described in several places as “Kohein Midyan”. Rashi comments (B’reishis 47:22) that while in most situations, “Kohein” means some sort of religious officer, when used in describing Yisro, it means simply that he was an important figure in Midyanite society. The implication is that Yisro was not particularly renowned for his paganism.

In P’ Sh’mos, Rashi elaborates a little. “Kohein” still means “Lord”, but Rashi adds that Yisro had become excommunicated by the local community on account of his having abandoned their idolatry (2:16). In Va’eira, he cites a midrash that says that Yisro had fattened calves to be sacrificed to various deities (6:35)

Finally, in this week’s parasha (18:10), Rashi writes that Yisro had familiarized himself with, and worshipped, every type of idol-worship in the world before coming to the Jews.

These are all the relevant passages in Rashi that I could think of, and at first glance they seem to be somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, Rashi goes out of his way to diminish the significance of those words which would most clearly indicate Yisro’s connection to paganism, namely his designation as “Kohein Midyan”; yet at the same time, he does not deny that Yisro had been the world’s greatest connoisseur of idols. Why not simply say that “Kohein” means priest?

Indeed, the opinion of R’ Yehoshua (Mechilta of R’ Yishmael, Yisro, Parasha 1) is that “Kohein Midyan” does indeed mean “priest”. According to R’ Yehoshua (see Mechilta of R’ Shimon Bar Yochai for the correct version), even at the time Moshe arrived at Yisro’s home, the latter was still steeped in idolatry.

Rashi, however, subscribes in his commentaries to the opinion of R’ Elazar of Modi’im, who says that “Kohein Midyan” means “Lord of Midyan”. Most likely, Rashi was bothered by the fact that the Torah mentions this term at the beginning of this week’s parasha. Why should it emphasize his sinfulness at a time when he was leaving all of it behind and going out to the wilderness?

Yes, there are other indications that Yisro had previously been an idolater; and Rashi makes mention of these. But at some point in his life, he had a change of heart, though it was incomplete until he heard of the punishment administered to the Egyptians. This does not contradict Rashi’s explanation of “Kohein Midyan”.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Your personal smell is of no interest to me."

-SG, to NG, re. "distinct"

From The Devil's Dictionary

Eulogy, n. Praise of a person who has either the advantages of wealth and power, or the consideration to be dead.

Quote

"Carol Burnett described what labour pains feel like. She said, 'Take your bottom lip, and pull it over your head.'"

- Bill Cosby

The Investigative Reporter #1

Almost everyday you'll hear or read about a strange story in the news. In fact not so long ago, fellow blogger Rabbi Rotes reported a story here about a man who broke into someone's house in the middle of the night and started to eat leftovers out of their fridge. Well, after I hear one of these news items I often start asking questions about the story and wonder what the heck is going on. I feel it is my duty to start asking these questions out loud, so I do and people look at me strange and hide their children from me when I pass them in the street. I've decided that instead of wandering the streets asking questions, it may be more effective to just write them down here on the blog. Our first news item is the following (my insight into the article appears after the article, oh and I took the article from this site, to avoid the whole plagarism dealio. Is that how you spell "dealio"?):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMPA - Those ice-cold drinks from favorite fast food restaurants may not seem as refreshing after a seventh-grader’s science project reveals what may lurk inside the cup.

Benito Middle School student Jasmine Roberts examined the amount of bacteria in ice served at fast food restaurants. Her project won the science fair at the New Tampa school, and she hopes to win a top prize at the Hillsborough County Regional Science and Engineering Fair, which starts Tuesday.

The 12-year-old compared the ice used in the drinks with the water from toilet bowls in the same restaurants. Jasmine said she found the results startling. “I thought there might be a little bacteria in the ice, but I never expected it to be this much,” she said. “And I never thought the toilet water would be cleaner.” Her discovery: Seventy percent of the time, the ice had more bacteria than the toilet water.

Geoff Luebkemann, director of the division for hotels and restaurants at the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, said people shouldn’t swear off fast food ice just yet. His state agency regulates Florida businesses, including coordinating health inspections. “Ice machines are part of the health inspections,” Luebkemann said. “There are a lot of factors that have to be considered, like how accurately did she gather and test her specimens. Plus, comparing the ice to toilet water can be misleading because there are acceptable levels of bacteria for water.”

Jasmine said she has always been interested in water quality and its link to health issues. Last year, she compared hotel ice to toilet water. She decided to branch out to restaurants this year. She is a previous county winner, and her brother won a top prize last year for his project.
For this project, Jasmine visited five fast food restaurants near the University of South Florida. She collected ice samples from self-service dispensers inside the restaurants, as well as ice from drinks served through drive-through windows. She also collected samples of toilet water from those restaurants. She placed the samples into sterile containers and tested them at a lab at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, where she volunteers with a USF professor. Jasmine found that in four of the five restaurants, the ice that came from the self-serve machines had more bacteria than the toilet water. Three of the five cups of ice from the drive-through windows had more bacteria than the toilet water. Of the bacteria found in the ice, three out of the five restaurants tested positive for fecal coliform or E. coli, organisms that come from the feces of warm-blooded animals. Health symptoms related to the presence of coliform include cramps and diarrhea. E. coli can cause intestinal illness and, in rare cases, hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious kidney condition.

Jasmine offers several theories for the contamination. “The machine may not be cleaned properly, or it comes from someone touching the ice with their hands,” she said.
Galina Tuninskaya, vice president of Applied Consumer Services, a private lab that tests drinking water, said the standard for drinking water is usually 100 colony-forming units of bacteria per milliliter. The highest amount Jasmine found was 54 units in ice from a self-serve machine. Tuninskaya said the acceptable level varies for each type of bacteria. “No levels of fecal coliform or E. coli are acceptable,” she said. “If you find that, you’ve got a problem.”

Jasmine won’t reveal the locations she tested, for legal reasons, but she did present her findings to the restaurants and various government agencies. “I think this is important because these bacteria can seriously affect people with weak immune systems,” she said. She said the restaurant managers or owners she spoke with were surprised by the results because, they said, they clean the machines regularly. Several managers said they plan to use the information to change procedures, Jasmine said. One manager even asked her to come back and test the temperature of the food.

As for Jasmine, she has changed her ordering habits. “No way,” she said. “After this, I definitely don’t get ice.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, what’s with the manager who has asked Jasmine to come back and test the temperature of the food? Is that such a complicated task? Does he really need Jasmine for this? Is this the manager’s way of diverting attention away from the fact that his ice is really frozen human waste cubes?

Now for my dear friend Mister Geoff Luebkemann, who goes so far as to discredit Jasmine’s methods of gathering and testing the specimens. Perhaps Geoff should do his homework, Jasmine isn’t your typical 12 year-old, she works at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, where she volunteers with a USF professor! Based on this information I find it highly unlikely that her testing methods are questionable. Also, who in their right mind, without any evidence (as it would appear that he has none) would immediately say the equivalent of “Ah, she’s just a stupid 12 year-old girl.”

Mister Geoff doesn’t stop there, he continues to look like a moron by saying that “comparing the ice to toilet water can be misleading because there are acceptable levels of bacteria for water.” On the surface this actually makes some sense. But as Miss Galina Tuninskaya points out, even though the standard for drinking water is usually 100 colony-forming units of bacteria per milliliter, and the highest Jasmine found was 54 units, that’s only applicable for specific types of bacteria as she goes on to state that “No levels of fecal coliform or E. coli are acceptable” and yet somehow three of the five restaurants tested were found to have fecal coliform or E. coli in their ice.

Also, has Geoff ever seen a public toilet? For that matter, has Geoff ever seen a public toilet in a fast food restaurant? Most of them look like nuclear war zones, which by the way makes this whole project even more alarming. How on earth is it possible to create something more “dirty” than the public toilets in a fast food restaurant? Where exactly are these restaurants getting the water for their ice? It can’t be from their toilets, because those are obviously not dirty enough!

You know what really gets me? These fast food restaurants always fill your beverage with forty times the amount of ice a normal human being would put in their beverage at home. How many people put an entire ice berg worth of ice cubes in their beverage at home? So why do they do this at fast food restaurants? Do I really need to drink that much fecal matter with my Orange Crush?

I hope that by now you can all see the direction I’m heading in. If you put two and two together you can only come to one possible conclusion. The only place more fecal filled than a public toilet in a fast food restaurant is the sewage treatment plant. Hmmmm… and the sewage treatment plant is the place where they try and eliminate all of our sewage. Well, what better way to eliminate all of our sewage, than mass producing sewage ice cubes and feeding them back to the unsuspecting public?

Ephraim Stulberg on Yitro, 5764

In this week’s parasha, we are introduced to the two sons of Moshe: Gershom and Eliezer (Sh’mos 18:3-4). The eldest was dubbed Gershom, for, as Moshe noted, “I was a sojourner in a strange land”, while the younger son was named Eliezer, “for the God of my father helped me, and He saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.” These two figures are never really heard from again in the rest of the Torah, however, and thus remain somewhat enigmatic. So let’s see what we can figure out about them.

To begin with, however, we ought to ask ourselves a few questions about the two verses we just cited. First of all, why does Moshe say that he “was” a sojourner in a foreign land, employing the past tense rather than the present? When he named his son, he was still living in Midyan (see Sh’mos 2:22). And yet Egypt, in which Moshe was born, was the only other land in which he had lived - unless we accept the strange account given in “Divrei Hayamim shel Moshe Rabbeinu” of his adventures in Kush - and thus unlikely to be described by him as “strange”.

Secondly, the priority of the names seems to be reversed. Surely he ought to have praised Hashem for miraculously saving his neck from the axe of Pharaoh’s executioner (see Mechilta, cited in Rashi) before giving thanks for his relative prosperity following his displacement from his home in Egypt. His near-death experience occurred before his exile, and it was also a far more noteworthy event in his life. So why wasn’t his first-born son called Eliezer?

Thirdly, we have to figure out when Eliezer was born. In parashas Sh’mos, we are told of the birth of Gershom, but no mention is made of any brothers. Later on in that parasha, we read that Moshe finally decided to return to Egypt as God’s emissary, taking with him “his wife and sons” (Sh’mos 4:20). Why isn’t Eliezer’s birth recorded more explicitly, alongside that of Gershom? And finally, we must wonder what happened to Moshe’s sons that they should have remained with his father-in-law, as well as what happened to them after they came back to rejoin the Israelites.

The key to answering all of these questions is to be found in a fascinating midrash, cited in the beginning of the Mechilta on this week’s parasha, as well as in the Targum “Yonasan” on Sh’mos 4:24. The midrash tells us that when Yisro agreed to give his daughter Tzipporah to Moshe to be his wife, he stipulated that the first son she would bear for Moshe would be given over to the service of idolatry; all subsequent children would be allowed to follow in Moshe's’ path and serve Hashem. It was Gershom, not Eliezer, who hadn’t been circumcised when they set out to return to Egypt, and who almost cost Moshe his life, if not for Tzipporah’s quick thinking. With this in mind, let us now see if we can resolve some of our difficulties.

Immediately, our first two questions begin to seem less opaque. The usage of the past tense in the phrase “for I was a sojourner” is indicative of the real significance of the nomenclature. Gershom was named for the sake of posterity, as a way of explaining to anyone who might ask why the son of Moshe, or his descendents, didn’t follow in his father’s path (see Bava Basra 109b, for a description of Gershom’s descendants). “Why doesn’t your son serve Hashem, but rather seems drawn after idol worship? What’s happened to your offspring?” would go the question, to which Moshe would respond that there had been no choice, that he had been forced to concede his son to such practices because he had had no power in Midyan, no ability to dictate terms, “for I was a sojourner in a strange land” - to which the Targum “Yonasan” adds the words “that was not my own.” It was a land where idolatry was the norm, and where Moshe had no support for his views – truly “nachria mamash”, in the words of the R’ Yehoshua in the Mechilta.

Our second question is also easily resolved. Moshe was not thanking Hashem for helping him cope with life in a foreign country; rather, he was explaining, or excusing, the future behaviour of his first-born son. The name Gershom fits only the eldest son, and only with the arrival of a second child could Moshe begin to give thanks to Hashem for the most significant event in his life, his saviour from imminent death in Egypt.

Why weren’t we informed of Eliezer’s birth when it happened? Again, if we examine the context of the verse recounting the birth of Gershom in P’ Sh’mos, it becomes all too clear. Immediately preceding that verse, we are told that Moshe swore to live with Yisro, and therefore was given Tzipporah as a wife. This vow was the one by which Moshe designated his first son to idolatry. Thus the entire passage in P’ Sh’mos is not concerned with the genealogy of Moshe’s descendents, but rather with explaining the peculiar name, and subsequent fate, of his first-born. There was really no reason to mention Eliezer over there or elsewhere.

When Eliezer is finally mentioned in this week’s parasha, he is not called the second son, but rather introduced as an equal of Gershom. “The name of one was Gershom…and the name of one was Eliezer…” Eliezer and Gershom are not two members of the same set; rather, they represent two different elements in the progeny of Moshe. Indeed, as the Neztiv observes, the main line of Moshe’s descendants came from Eliezer – see Divrei Hayamim I 23:17, and B’rachos 7a.

With this background in mind, it becomes painfully obvious why the descendents of Moshe seem not to have approached his lofty achievements. While the offspring of Gershom eventually became involved with the Idol of Michah, those of Eliezer ultimately did achieve spiritual prominence of a more legitimate nature, but not until the time of R’ Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (see Yalkut Shimoni).

There are other possible ways of answering all of these questions – see the Chizkuni, who deals with most of them in a completely different fashion – but this is one way of looking at things.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Hello, is the General there? It's Cap'n Crunch."

- MF the Elder, re. phoning General Mills

From The Devil's Dictionary

Esoteric, adj. Very particularly abstruse and consummately occult. The ancient philosophies were of two kinds, - exoteric, those that the philosophers themselves could partly understand, and esoteric, those that nobody could understand. It is the latter that have most profoundly affected modern thought and found greatest acceptance in our time.

Quote

"The average age of our bench is deceased."

- Tommy Lasorda, Dodgers manager

A Flabbergasting Feast

Maxiebaby sure has developed a taste for endangered species. Maxiebaby is pictured below, preparing to feast on three of the world’s rarest animals, the Ethiopian Wolf, the Visayan Spotted Deer, and the Hirola (Hunter’s Hartebeest).

Some of you may know the Ethiopian Wolf as the “Simien jackal” as it had previously been called (before 1990). The Ethiopian Wolf, found only in Ethiopia, is the world’s rarest canid. A canid, for those of you who are uneducated, is a member of the family Canidae, which includes the dogs, foxes, jackals and wolves. The Ethiopian Wolf population is numbered in the hundreds, a fact that Maxiebaby may want to keep in mind.

There are only a few hundred remaining Visayan Spotted Deer (minus one more now, thanks to Maxiebaby) all of which can be found in the Philipines.

The Hirola or Hunter’s Hartebeest is only found in Somalia and Kenya (and on Maxibaby’s kitchen table) and is numbered in the few hundred. The Hirola is crepuscular, which means it becomes active at sunlight, and it can also go without water (not sure how that’s possible, but I guess you adapt when you live in Somalia and Kenya).

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"What I would like you to do now is to go to Beis Midrash and review the piece we have just seen from Mishna to Mishna to Mishna with all the Rashi, the Tosfot that we have seen, and the piece of Rosh and Maharsha we saw in the back. Let's go."

-RBP, last sentence in quasi-sing-song

From The Devil's Dictionary

Envelope, n. The coffin of a document; the scabbard of a bill; the husk of a remittance; the bed-gown of a love-letter.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Midwestern politics, n. The art of the passable.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Politics, n. The art of the possible.

Israeli politics, n. The art of the impossible.

The Dark Lord's Dictionary

Is, v. Is is. Many English speakers now automatically delete one is, but the proper usage has been preserved by many in such sentences as "The problem is, is that we don't have enough time."

Quote

"The Houston Astros are the youngest team in the National League if you judge by age."

- Don Drysdale

Curious George Collaborator Found Dead

Not sure if you guys heard the news that Alan Shalleck, a collaborator on the Curious George books, was found murdered outside his home (news article can be read here).

I Just heard that they've found a witness who claims that she saw someone running away from Shalleck's home the night of the murder. The witness didn't get a good look at the suspect, but she did confirm that the man was wearing a yellow hat.

Advice

"I wish I could remember everything I told him."

- pitcher Charlie Hough, after Bobby Witt asked him for advice and proceeded to win 8 straight games

Movie Review: The Pink Panther

Tommy, Eli, Ilana, and I went to go see the new Pink Panther movie last night and I figured I’d share that experience with you here today, or some other day, depending upon when you read this post, that is if you’ll read this post. Hope all’s clear. Ok run, run. All right, everybody safe? Enough of this dawdling and on to the post.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Pink Panther series, allow me to give you some background. The movie focuses on one main character, which by the way is a great idea. I’m sick and tired of those movies which are always switching characters, focusing on one fellow for the first few scenes, and then moving on to the next man without any thought or concern of the wellbeing of the first fellow, and before you know it you’re now following the travails of a third man, the first man a distant memory and the second man slowly fading from your cerebral orb. Then in comes the fourth and fifth man and you’re left wondering where the third man has gone, and before you’re done pondering that, the sixth man has already made his entrance and exit and you’re now watching the comings and goings of the seventh man. The seventh man often sticks around for an extra minute or two, in order to give the viewer the false illusion that he’s actually watching a movie and not looking out his living room window, and then the seventh fellow finishes looking at your garden and continues off down the street to some unknown destination.

Back to the Pink Panther. And let me tell you it’s awfully difficult to follow the plot of movie while sitting like this, so eventually I was forced to turn around and watch the movie while sitting in the proper position. The usher had nothing to do with it. Neither did the policeman who was brandishing his night stick a little too enthusiastically. But I digress.

So now I’m in the normal forward facing position, watching the Pink Panther. Here’s how the basic plot unfolded. You’re introduced to the main character, who is an inspector or gladiator if you will. This man, inspector, gladiator fellow, is introduced into the movie in a time of great crisis, his country needs him desperately. The opening scene takes place in Germania, 150 AD, with the Romans absolutely clobbering the Germanic forces, killing them with spears, arrows, and sword. After the Romans easily dismantle the Germanic forces, Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius arrives on scene, and takes the main character, inspector, gladiator fellow into a private meeting where he reveals that he is nearing his death, and he would like the inspector to take his place as Roman Emperor. Commodus, the Emperor’s son and next in line to the throne, gets wind of his father’s plan, and takes matters into his own hands. Commodus kills his father, and assumes the position of Emperor of Rome. Meanwhile the inspector is exiled and his family is killed. The inspector quickly becomes a gladiator, and eventually finds his way back to Rome and his plan for revenge begins. I don’t want to give away too much of the plot, so I’ll stop the summary here and pick it up again right at the end where the inspector kills Emperor Commodus in a one on one showdown but is dealt a lethal blow in the form of a knife to the chest before the battle begins, so the inspector dies shortly after having killed Commodus. Anyhow, the Pink Panther was an excellent movie and I highly recommend it.