Techeiles 5 – Creature Features: Of Mice (and Lice) and Men

Author’s Note- As usually happens, my simple preamble posts spontaneously expand. This post is the continuation and conclusion of my previous Techeiles post on how advanced Chazal were in the natural sciences. In the previous post we covered astronomy and this post covers biology. It consists of two sections, human and animal so I could have easily broken it into two separate posts and posted them separately. However, these are all background posts to the main topic and I want to finish with the background and write about actual Techeiles in time for Parshat Shelach (I get two chances this year). So I left this post intact but broke it into two sections so the reader can take one section at a time and “catch his breath”.
For the opening Techeiles post (recommended) see HERE.



Section 1 – The Birth of Man

It seems that my Murex trunculus Techeiles series is still moving along at a snail’s pace {groan} despite the fact that in the previous Techeiles post we covered a lot of ground {double groan}.

Let’s move on and discuss – well…us.

Biology, human physiology, sickness and healing and other medical conditions have always been part of the human experience and have been observed and studied close-up from day one. These things are a lot easier to observe than the relationship between the Earth and the sun. We do not really expect Chazal to tell us things that we don’t notice ourselves.

We are taught that there were some changes from the world before Adam ate from the Eitz HaDaas to afterward and before the great flood to afterward. There may also be a few things for which Chazal tell us מיום שחרב בית המקדש which, from the gemara in Sotah, appears to refer to the first Beis HaMikdash.

Nevertheless, Shlomo HaMelech says to us אין כל חדש תחת השמש to imply that nothing new was created after מעשה בראשית (see Shabbos 30b). HKBH set the biology of man and beast with plan and purpose. He knew from the get-go how things should work and there are reasons for everything even if we do not know the reasons. After all, it is all His plan. How, when and why should anything change?

As youngsters, many of us may have heard our cheder Rebbe (or teacher) tell over an obscure Midrash (Midrash Avkir) about Noach. The Midrash says that until Noach was born the fingers of a man’s hand were fused together like a mitten. When Noach was born, suddenly everybody had fingers (or were now born with fingers – see Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says, Beraishis pg. 78).

As young cheder children, we usually accept the enchanted parts of our mesorah at face value. But when we grow older and think back at them, they may not all look the same way to us. This specific one invokes a whole slew of questions:

Was Adam HaRishon created without fingers even before the Eitz HaDaas and only from the birth of Noach did this change, or was Adam HaRishon born with fingers and then they closed up – presumably due to the sin of the Eitz HaDaas – and only reopened 1000 years later? If the former, what was G-d’s original plan for our hands and why did this change now? If the latter, now that we need to work even harder to produce food, is this when HKBH is going to cripple us with [s]mitten hands? Why isn’t the fact of the fingers getting fused brought in any Midrashim about the Eitz HaDaas episode? Were our toes also fused together or just the fingers? Did apes and monkeys have fingers while humans did not? If Adam HaRishon was created without fingers and maybe even without toes, then the mystical number of 248 limbs was not really applicable from creation but from the birth of Noach. It was only some kind of afterthought. If so, why is it so mystical? (Besides, we could have gotten off with 16 less mitzvos!)

This is similar to the age-old question of what kind of tefillin did the Jews wear before the machlokes of Rashi and Rabenu Tam? If you want to answer that there were always two opinions and customs, when did these two customs diverge and why?

In any case, even though I think many of us have heard this Midrash about Noach’s fingers, it comes from an obscure source that only surfaced in the times of the Rishonim and does not have any other known source in Chazal. Legend has it that in his famous disputation, Ramban stated that we do not need to accept all Midrashim. I will take him up on this one.

This “Chazal” doesn’t matter much anyway because we do not have any Halachos that depend on it (maybe mayim achronim??). My purpose is to talk about divrei Chazal that do serve as a basis for Halacha. So let us discuss another strange biological concept that carries a lot more weight: seven month pregnancy.

When I was a lad, about the same time that I learned about mitten hands, I was also taught that “in the old days”, some women had full term babies after seven months instead of nine. But only some women. There were two types. Amazingly, quite a few Biblical heroes including virtually all of the Shevatim, Zerach and Peretz, Chur and Betzalel (Sanhedrin 69b), Moshe Rabbenu, Shmuel HaNavi (Niddah 38b), and Yitzchok Avinu (Rosh HaShanna 11a) were born full and complete after a seven-month gestation and a shortened one at that. Among all of these, apparently only Yaakov and Eisav are singled out as being born after nine whole months.

All through Shas, the concept of the seven-month gestation is taken for granted. So much so, that the gemara (Yevamos 37a) indicates that the phenomenon was alive and well, albeit as the exception to the norm, even in its post-Biblical Talmudic era. As a result, we have the very firm Halacha of שלשה חודשי הבחנה - the three month waiting period from when a woman who has ended her earlier marriage must wait before entering into a later marriage – in order to avoid a question of paternity that we call ספק בן תשעה לראשון, ספק בן שבעה לאחרון – a doubt whether the baby is a nine-month offspring of the earlier husband or a seven-month offspring of the later husband.

There is even a more serious Halacha. Shulchan Aruch (YD 266:11) says that if a child is born after eight months, if we see underdevelopment in hair and nails, it means the child is a premature nine-month baby and not likely to survive. We cannot do a briss for him on Shabbos. But if he was born at seven months, we classify him as a full-term baby and do the briss on Shabbos even if it is not fully developed!!!

Both of these Halachos are in force to this very day and there are no plans to modify them (not that we ever modify our traditional Halacha). But, is there really such a thing as a full term seven-month gestation (or…was there)?

As you may guess, I did a thorough Googling and, outside of some Jewish discussions, I found absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever, in medical sources and elsewhere, that such a phenomenon exists today or that it ever did. Nothing.

It does not happen at all now and there is no indication from any other culture that it ever did. Human physiology does not indicate it under normal conditions. There is nothing known that should trigger such a thing.

We are forced to say one of two things:

Option One - This was an actual and normal phenomenon up to a certain point in time, but at some point it (inexplicably?) changed and does not occur anymore. This is the fail-safe rationale which we term נשתנה הטבע meaning “the natural course has changed” but this never explains anything. It carries the same baggage as the mitten hands - when did this change? And why did this change? And, if this is how things were meant to be “before”, why should they be different now? Why should there be two types of pregnancies? Why not three types? And, of course, why is there no mention of this in any non-Jewish source?

Option Two - This was never a real phenomenon in the times of Chazal (it is hard to understand the world of Biblical days when there were open miracles and prophets – but prophecy and Biblical miracles ended with Chagai, Zecharia and Malachi - Rabi Chanina ben Dosa notwithstanding). If women had babies after only 6 or 7 months, they were really nine-month babies that were premature. Those who thought that this is an alternative normal gestation period were misinterpreting what they were observing.

The second option makes us very uncomfortable and tells us that Chazal were not on the mark on biology. As such, the Halacha about the three-month waiting period is not medically justified. This is not something that we want to hear and is difficult to accept. Perhaps they were riding on the coattails of the Midrashic traditions even though it wasn’t really going on in their days. It bursts our bubble. But it doesn’t carry all the baggage of option one.

Neither of these options are ideal but there are no other ones. I prefer not to take sides. All I can say is that what we see today does not “shtim” with what Chazal tell us.

While we are in the neighborhood, let’s look at another very interesting Halacha. This is in Even HaEzer 4:14.

If a woman’s husband has been away for more than a year and then gives birth and she claims that she has not been naughty and there is no evidence that she was, there is a dispute if we must call the child a mamzer. The Rema clarifies that this is talking about an absence of more than a year. But less than that, up to a full year, there is no dispute and the child is considered kosher!

This is apparently based on an opinion of Rava Tosefaah in Yevamos 80b that a fetus can stay in the womb for up to three additional months. In other words, in rare cases there can even be a 12-month pregnancy. This is not suggesting a different type of pregnancy but a regular nine-month gestation that happens to drag out a few extra months.

Well, I Googled this up and found a 1945 Time Magazine article which claims a record pregnancy of 375 days. Next best was 317 days (10 ½ months). The woman was 25 years old and do you know what her first name was?

Beulah. (I am not making this up. Evidently, this was no virgin birth.)

So, perhaps something like this is more scientifically feasible today. The Sefer HaMeiri (Yevamos 80b) claims that in his days, a woman gave birth after a 15-month pregnancy. But then, in all seriousness, we can ask: why is there only a three-month wait between husbands to distinguish between a nine-month baby from the first husband or a seven-month from the second? There should be a six month wait in order to rule out an eleven or twelve-month baby from the first husband?

To date, I haven’t found anyone who asks this question and I am certainly stumped.

Let’s move on and see how well Chazal shtim with anatomy. And we will begin at the mystifying Mishna in Niddah 17b.

The Mishna tells us that the sages used a parable to describe the reproductive organs of a woman – the cheder (chamber), the prozdor (passageway), and the aliyah (attic). On impulse this seems to be very intuitive because I assume all most of us have seen diagrams of the female organs at some point in their lives and the figure can be described precisely as such. No worries, mate.

In truth, what we know about the prozdor and cheder make a lot of sense. There is a passage and there is a chamber. The problem is in the attic. What exactly is this? Intuitively, we assume this is the upper portion of the womb which opens out to the tubes and the ovaries (known as the adnexa). Fits on the pictures. However, the Mishna itself throws us two curve balls.

One is that it tells us that the blood discharged from the “attic” is tahor. Come again? Tahor? What is this “attic” and why does it discharge blood at all? The only internal organ in anybody’s anatomy that is meant to discharge blood is what we (or at least I) understand to be the “chamber”. The uterine lining. And the uterine blood is certainly tamei.

The second curve ball is the insinuation that it is even possible to find discharge in the chamber and not only in the prozdor. A living person has no access to anything but the “passage” that we know. This is where everything is found. The only question would be where did it come from?

If only the sages of the gemara could help us understand the enigmatic words of the Mishna. Alas, they only make it worse. The gemara indicates that this “attic” is wedged somewhere between the prozdor and the cheder and has direct access to the prozdor by way of an enclosure they call a “lul” (cage with no top). As such, all of the discharge that we see today is actually only a safek if it comes from the chamber or not and whether it is tamei or tahor.

Talmudic scholars and frum medical experts over the centuries have burnt gallons of midnight oil trying to get this Mishna to shtim with what we can see but it is now 5780 (2020) and nobody has produced a satisfactory explanation. It is known that the Chasam Sofer had to reject the descriptions of Rashi and Tosefos as incompatible to the facts and referred to a diagram from a very learned 17^th century Jewish Doctor (Tuvia HaKohen from Paduah). Unfortunately, his diagram is not all that accurate, either.

For a full overview, see HERE.

Unfortunately, it isn’t only the female reproductive anatomy that Chazal have difficulties with. There seem to incongruencies on both sides of the mechitzah. This brings us to Perek HaArel in Yevamos and the rules of petzuah daka.  

As my loyal readers know, I previously devoted an entire four-part series to analyzing the Halachos of petzuah daka and krus shafcha (PD/KS). In one post, I pointed out several areas where the rulings of Chazal do not “shtim” with empirical reproductive science. I also noted that I am not the first to take notice. Firstly, the gemara itself takes issue with the guidelines of the Braitha in Yevamos 75a. Here is how I wrote it over there:

The gemara quotes a Braitha which defines a petzuah daka as “one who sustained a wound to even one of his 'eggs' or even just a pierce or even…” don’t ask. The gemara on the spot challenges this Braitha with an incident of an accidental injury to one egg (we note from here that even accidental injuries count) and yet he had more children.

So, how does the gemara deal with this?

Shmuel sent the question to the attention of Rav and Rav said: Go and investigate the children where do they come from?

Rav is suggesting that the Braitha’s guidelines are scientifically immutable. So much so, that the more likely explanation is that the children do not come from this man and that his wife must have been “playing the field” (Rashi). The gemara does not tell us if the case was actually investigated and, since the Rabbanut have forbidden DNA tests, how would we carry out this investigation.

Let us assume that the later children resemble the father in question and all the previous children, and that the wife is a pious woman who is not very likely to or have much opportunity to engage in monkey business. Is Rav suggesting that we must declare the later children mamzeirim on the strength of the Braitha?

Tough question.

Even so, Tosefos is not satisfied with the Braitha either. Here is what I wrote:

Tosefos challenges the scientific accuracy of this Braitha that we see those who have lost one testicle and still procreate. The only response that Rabeinu Tam can give us is to distinguish between where a testicle is totally removed – can procreate – to where one is wounded but not removed (and the other is intact) – cannot procreate. 

Despite this distinction, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and, according to Rema, most Rishonim rule like the Braitha. If the Braitha says one is pasul it means he cannot procreate. Period. 

As the post continues, I discussed a 1963 ruling by HRHG Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZT”L (IGM E”H 2:3), to permit a doctor to do a partial removal on a married man because the doctors said that this will not diminish his ability to procreate.

I wrote:

We must recognize that Rav Moshe had to struggle with Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and many previous piskei din in 9 ½ columns of small print to make his case. And he had to insist that reproductive conditions of today are not the same as in the times of Chazal.

In other words, Rav Moshe ZT”L had to fall back on the נשתנה הטבע trick to get this fellow off the hook.

Now, all the above has to do with reproductive physiology, which is how do the body parts that we are acquainted with behave. So far, there is no suggestion that the male reproductive anatomy is any different than in the times of Chazal as we have suggested by the female. Or is there?

The seventh perek of Bechoros discusses the blemishes in Human beings that will render such a person unfit for Temple service if he is a Kohen. In daf 44b the Braitha states:

Tanu Rabbanan (Our sages taught) – A man has two orifices. One releases urine and the other releases semen. And there is nothing dividing these two orifices except a membrane that is like the peel of a garlic. When a man has his needs if the two passages are open one to the other, the man becomes sterile.

Based on this, the gemara in Yevamos 75b tells us of an incident in Pumbedisa regarding one whose passage for seed was obstructed and the seed would exit from the passage of the urine. Initially, Rav Bibi (no jokes please) bar Abaye wanted to permit this fellow to marry (or remain married). But, rest assured, he won’t get away with it. Comes Rav Papi and sets him straight, “In its proper place it (the seed) ripens (and can impregnate) and out of its proper place it does not ripen.” And, as such, Rav Papi saved his wife from a forbidden marriage.

And, sure enough, this Halacha is recorded for generations in Rambam Issurei Biah 16:6 and Even HaEzer 5:6. There seem to be no objections to this Halacha in the Rishonim and early poskim. Note, that the Rambam was one of the most renowned physicians of his time.

Despite this, I personally happen to be an alpha male and I cannot identify with this phenomenon. I consulted with a number of other certified males and the consensus seems to be unanimous. It just ain’t so.

Don’t take my word for it. The Schottenstein edition of Shas in Yevamos 75b (footnote 27) takes up the issue. First, they quote that the Chazon Ish in Even HaEzer 12:7 says that we don’t know from such a thing today and he even consulted with doctors (not the Rambam). His first suggestion is – you guessed it - אפשר ונשתנה הטבע בדבר הזה. Aside from this being a strong dochek, the problem with this is that we are not discussing physiology. This is anatomy. Anatomy is not טבע, it is מציאות. We do not readily say נשתנה המציאות. The second problem is that the Rambam (12^th century) and Shulchan Aruch (16^th century) all seems to uphold this phenomenon. We are back to our mitten and seven-month question as to exactly when did this change, how and why? Lastly, to say נשתנה הטבע when it comes to anatomy is a slippery slope. It can give us cause to disqualify all of our Hilchos treifos.

His second approach is to suggest that this is not and was not the normal anatomy even in the times of Chazal, but rather that even then it was a rare occurrence and Chazal were merely addressing the rare case. This is also very difficult to support because the Braitha in Bechoros presents this as a matter of common circumstance. Conversely, there does not seem to be any acknowledgement of such a condition in today’s world even as a rare occurrence.

The Schottenstein footnote references one other opinion which is that of the Teshuvos Yeshuas Malko who wants to suggest that this is referring to an internal point deeper within the male body “as we know to be the case”.  

This is likewise extremely difficult to uphold. Firstly, how can we determine what is going on anywhere deep within the body short of an ultrasound or biopsy? Secondly, the implication of the Braitha is that these two passages run parallel to each other separated by only a very thin membrane; and that they both present two distinct exits for the respective fluids. This, again, is not the case. Lastly, there is nothing in today’s medicine to support the idea of the passages “interchanging” and that it has any detrimental effect on the virility of the seed.

As far as I can determine, it just doesn’t shtim.

With this, we can conclude our discussion on human biology and finally discuss what really matters. Loathsome creatures.





Section 2 – From Dust Thou Comest

The issue of how we are to reconcile the descriptions of Chazal to unfamiliar creatures (and even some familiar ones) is the subject of a number of works put out by Rabbi Natan Slifkin in the previous decade. I refer the reader to his works for an honest and comprehensive analysis. Some of my observations may coincide with his (and I am using his book Sacred Monsters for reference), but they are independent all the same.

To avoid making an already-too-long post into a way-too-long post, the prosecution will suffice with calling only two witnesses. The first are those pesky, annoying, indestructible house lice (Reb Slifkin calls them sweat-lice).  

The gemara in Shabbos 107b implies that the Rabbanan permitted one to kill lice on Shabbos because they do not breed biologically. The gemara goes so far as to differentiate these common lice from a sub-species called beitzel kinim (eggs of lice) which are really another species of true lice that do breed. Apparently, the gemara expects us to know the difference.

The obvious problem is that any form of louse known to us today reproduces biologically. There are no proven observations of lice that spontaneously generate. In short, the lice we know of today do not “shtim” with what it says in Chazal.

Reb Slifkin has a very thorough 25-page essay on this matter at the end of his book Sacred Monsters. His essay focuses on the question of whether the standing lenient Halacha in Shulchan Aruch should be upheld or not. The reader can find all the opinions and sources right there.

For our purposes we are stuck with two inescapable options:

The first option is that the lice that are being discussed in the Talmud are not the same lice as we have today. Those lice are now extinct. This of course brings us back to the question oft-repeated in this post: When did they go extinct, how, and why? (Reb Slifkin asks the “how” question in footnote 10 of his chapter.)

As for Halacha, it would clearly mean that we must change the ruling and forbid the killing of all lice. It is not possible to rely on the concept that the hetter is a tradition in Halacha and there are other esoteric reasons and Chazal only presented this specific reason to give a perceptible rationale because this can only apply if they are the same lice. But our lice are different creatures and not the ones referenced in Shabbos and, as such, there was never a hetter for these.

All this is mentioned by Reb Slifkin (pp. 353-4). But, another downside of this option which I did not notice in is essay is the question: Where were today’s lice during the time of Chazal? It is clear that Chazal did not acknowledge their existence because, if they had, they would have drawn a distinction in the gemara between the two species just as they did with beitzei kinim – unless today’s lice are beitzei kinim (not very likely)! To say that they did not exist at all at that time implies that they “evolved” later. Certainly, incompatible with our creed and a challenge to Shlomo Hamelech אין כל חדש תחת השמש. To say that they did exist at that time but Chazal were not aware of their existence once again challenges the notion that Chazal were fully acquainted with scientific knowledge.

The second option is that these are indeed the same lice and Chazal were mistaken about their biological capabilities. This gives us the luxury to maintain that the Halacha is a standing tradition and is not really dictated by how they reproduce so the hetter stands firm. Of course, to go this route we need to pay the price of conceding that Chazal were not spiritually scientifically advanced and we also need to say that Chazal were not telling us the real story of why it is muttar.

All told, clearly HRHG Yisroel Reisman, Shlita will have to go with Option 1 and renounce the Halachic hetter because the lice that we have today do not shtim with Chazal and they have a 0% chance of being from the creatures described in Rambam Shabbos 11:2.

The final witness that I wish to call to the stand display case [of the Museum of Super-Natural History] is the elusive “mud-mouse”. In the Yeshiva world it’s called the “mudna” (weird) mouse.

The Mishna in Chullin 126b states:

A [dead] mouse that is half flesh and half earth, if one touches the flesh, he is tamei, if he touches the earth, he remains tahor.

Rashi describes this creature (the Bartenura in Mishnayos quotes Rashi word for word): 

There is a species of mouse that does not breed but rather forms itself from earth like refuse that swarms with worms, and if this mouse has not been fully formed, just the right side or the left, one who only touches the earth on the other side remains tahor.

Lest anybody should suggest that the Mishna does not really mean spontaneous generation but some other cause for a mouse to be “part-earth”, we must point to the Braitha quoted in the gemara at the end of the daf and top of the next that explicitly refers to the mouse "that does not breed".

The issues relating both to the [presumed] fallacy of spontaneous generation and the Halachic implications are, more or less, identical to those of the lice. Once again, I refer the reader to the complete subject on the chapter in R’ Slifkin’s Sacred Monsters replete with sources. There is one subtle difference between the two and this is what I want to focus on.

The lice in question in Masechet Shabbos were actually seen at that time. Nobody had any doubt what creature is being analyzed. The only thing is that nobody could see how they generated so there was room to believe that they formed themselves (even if they actually did form themselves, I am sure nobody saw it happen).

The mud[na] mouse is slightly different. Yes, the Mishna presents it as a known creature and has its characteristics down pat so it can determine the Halacha, but-but-but…is there any indication from the Mishna or anywhere that anybody has actually seen this creature?

As I said, the Mishna presents it as a familiar creature. Whose words are those of the Mishna? We can say that a “stam Mishna” is the wording of Rabi Meir or that the Mishna was edited by Rabi Yehuda HaNasi. Did either of them ever see this mouse?

There is no way we can tell, but all the same, there is no indication that they did. Clearly in those times, virtually “everybody” just “knew” they were there, but nobody really saw one.  It is highly possible that, even then, there were those who were skeptical of such a mouse. The Tanaim of the Mishna were ruling the halacha hypothetically based on the common belief – if it exists, this is the Halacha, if it does not, it is just like any ordinary mouse. It is not testifying to its existence.

I have always been fascinated by Rashi’s description. For what does he need to describe it? Isn’t it common knowledge? 

The first place (actually the only place) the Torah mentions a dog – כלב – is in Shmos 11:6. Rashi expends a lot of ink to explain what “yecheratz” means but not a speck on what a kelev is. Why not? Rashi in Eilu Metzios doesn’t bother explaining us what מחרוזות דגים are nor igulei d’veila (pressed figs). Why not? Don’t we need to know what a dag is? Don’t answer that Rashi knows that we learned about fish together with fins and scales in Parshat Shemini and Re’eh because the term דג is not mentioned there. Indeed, HKBH says of man: וירדו בדגת הים but Rashi doesn’t think it’s important to tell us what a dag is over there, either. How does he expect us to know?

The answer is quite obvious. We all know what a kelev is. We see them all over the place. What does Rashi need to tell us something so obvious? We all know what a fish is (and a loaf of figs). There is no need to describe it. So, if this mouse is so ubiquitous, why does Rashi need to tell us that there is such a thing?

Apparently, Rashi does not expect us to know what this creature is. If he needs to tell us that it exists, then he thinks that many, if not most or all, of his readers will have never heard of such a thing. And this is in the middle ages (circa 1050 CE) when everyone believed in spontaneous generation. Rashi didn’t think most people ever saw such a thing. And do you know why?

Because Rashi never saw such a thing!

Rashi accepts the gemara carte blanche (this is Rashi’s style throughout Shas) and how his Rabbaim described it to him and he helps us out by assuring us that it is around somewhere, but he is not testifying that he ever saw it. No, I cannot prove this is so, but I think it interesting that Rav Ovadia of Bartenura quotes Rashi’s description verbatum as if it’s his own. Did he (Rav Ovadia) ever see it?

Before we go on, we must note that the Mishna in Chullin is not the only place in Shas that features our mud[na] mouse. It does a cameo “appearance” in Sanhedrin 91a. This is the sugya of Techiyas HaMeisim. A heretic approached Rabi Ami and said to him that once a man dies, he changes to dust. The natural trend is that the living turn to dust, how can the dust reverse the trend and turn into the living?

Rabi Ami first give him a parabolic argument. He follows up by saying, “And if you don’t accept this, then go out to the valleys and see the mouse that today is half earth and half flesh and tomorrow it becomes totally flesh.”

Rashi first identifies this creature as a squirrel and then tells us that there are some species among them that do not come to existence by breeding. Once again, he has to teach the reader what this is. Though it is a bit odd that he needs to identify it as a squirrel in particular (perhaps he just means “rodent”).

I was always bothered by this gemara. Was the heretic aware of this creature? If so, why didn’t Rabi Ami just refer to it instead of sending him to look for it? If he was not aware of this creature, how was Rabi Ami so confident that he would be able to locate it? Better, why didn’t Rabi Ami just show it to him? And, this thought brings me to my strongest curiosity – did Rabi Ami ever see this creature himself?

I have no idea, but my spider-mouse sense tells me - no.

All told, this creature is featured two places in Shas but neither place is testifying that anybody actually saw it.

Rambam, who vouches for spontaneous generation and codifies the Halacha as presented, tells us that, “There is no end to the number of people who have told me that they have seen it. This is despite the fact that the existence of such a creature is astonishing and I do not know of any explanation for it.”

This seems to imply that Rambam accepted spontaneous generation for insects and worms where the entire organism arose from the rot. But something that was earth and gradually transformed itself into flesh and blood over the copurse of time is way over the top. One thing is certain – Rambam is admitting to the world that he never saw it!

What comes out of all this is that, even though the Talmud refers to this mouse in two places as a known creature, the Talmud is not really assuring us that it ever existed. As such, one who wishes to claim that the gemara is not really telling us that such a creature exists, but rather what is the Halacha if it does, is on solid ground (although it may be a bit muddy.)

What do Gedolim say about it today?

Many are those who understand the gemara to mean that this creature definitely exist[s]/[ed] and if the gemara says it exist[s]/[ed] there is no room to argue.

R' Slifkin writes (Sacred Monsters pg. 333) that the Klausenberger Rebbe, ZT”L “presented the Talmud’s description of this rodent as proof of spontaneous generation and ridiculed the idea that a non-Jewish scientist would know better than the sages.” (Note – The Rebbe may have been using this concept to permit some of the parasites that we find in fish). I sincerely cannot describe how much unlimited admiration I have for the Klausenberger Rebbe ZT”L. But still…did he ever see this mouse?

Likewise, HRHG Rav Moshe Sternbuch, who lives near me in Har Nof, said in a Headlines podcast on Feb. 20, 2016 that it certainly existed and is currently hidden or extinct. This recalls Reb Slifkin’s comment about the lice – how can a creature that does not need to breed become extinct? (Perhaps the right type of mud became extinct.)

Conversely, HRHG Rav Moshe Meiselman, who lives near me in Har Nof, said in a Headlines podcast seven weeks earlier on Jan. 2, 2016 that Chazal knew “the truth” about reproduction and that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. But the heretics did believe in it. As such, Rabi Ami in Sanhedrin 91a, in an effort to make the heretic accept the concept of techiyas hameisim, tried to convince the heretic by impressing on what he (the heretic) believes in. But Rabi Ami did not believe in it. This would answer why Rabi Ami sent him hunting and did not attempt to produce the creature himself.

This approach is mostly incompatible with the Mishna in Chullin unless we say that there, as well, Chazal were only speaking hypothetically. It is very hard to read such a thing into the Braitha at the end of the daf. And, for sure, Rashi takes both references quite literally.

HRHG Rav Moshe Maimonides, ZT”L, who lived far away from me in Egypt, is reluctant to accept that any mammal can generate without breeding, like Rav Meiselman, but is also reluctant to say it doesn’t exist, like Rav Sternbuch, but, unlike Rav Sternbuch, he is also reluctant to say that it is extinct, since so many people claim to have seen it. But he admits that he hasn’t seen it. (All this was 800 years ago.)

From Moshe to Moshe there is no one like Moshe.

All I can say is that I live in Har Nof but my name is not Moshe. It is hard for me to believe that this creature ever existed. It does not seem to exist now. It is also hard for me to believe that Chazal, in their time, did not sincerely believe it exists. If they did not really believe it exists, why would they fool us into believing what they didn’t believe?

With the two “Rav Moshe”s, we are clearly wearing two watches. I am not sure what time it is. The two watches don’t shtim. But, unlike Rav Reisman, Shita, I have come to terms with the sincere belief that not all things in Chazal need to shtim.

I think we are finally ready to talk about the Murex trunculus.

Stay tuned...

Long Memories: The Deir Yassin Syndrome

כי זוכר כל נשכחות אתה הוא מעולם ואין שכחה לפני כסא כבודיך

The Deir Yassin Syndrome is alive and well at Emes Ve-Emunah.

Definition:

Deir Yassin Syndrome - The tendency of belligerent people to dig up long-forgotten isolated episodes of unruliness with which to malign and defame a group or individual for lack of having anything up-to-date available for this purpose.

(Source - Miriam Webster Hirshman Collegiate Oxford Dictionary of Syndromes and other Psychatric Disorders - Vol IX, page 857)

Does anybody have a clue about what Deir Yassin was?

I didn't think so. Especially because it is a long-forgotten isolated episode.

Deir Yassin was an Arab village situated on a ridge west of Jerusalem overlooking the ancient Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway before it became the modern Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway. Prior to the great war in 1948, it was a bit difficult to truck vital goods into Jewish Jerusalem because the Arabs that lived in the villages overlooking the highway, or those who were just visiting, would go sniping at the trucks just for the fun of it. The Jewish militias had to break the siege on Jerusalem and, to do so, they needed to occupy some of those villages.

As one Wiki site put it (thank G-d for copy/paste):

In an effort by the Jewish militias to clear the road to Jerusalem, which was being blockaded by Arab forces, Deir Yassin was attacked and emptied of its inhabitants on April 9, 1948, by 120 Irgun and Lehi forces, reinforced by Haganah troops. The invasion was part of the Haganah's Operation Nachshon. A unit from the Palmach, the Haganah's strike force, took part in the assault using mortars. Around 107 villagers, including women and children, and four Irgun or Lehi men were killed. The incident became known as the Deir Yassin massacre.

There are numerous accounts to exactly what happened, none of them reliable. Any person who was involved, Arab or Jew, Irgun or Haganah has good reason to bend the truth. You can find most of the (alleged) details on the other Wiki site (thank G-d for hyperlinks). The "world" calls it a massacre. We call it a strategic battle. Regardless, it was a bloody mess.

Despite its necessity as a strategic maneuver, it was seen as an act of Jewish agression. Likely, more people died than needed to but the question is: who is to blame for that? Depends who you ask. To some extent it may have been a departure from our more defensive stances. It was certainly no more aggressive than the constant Arab riots and raids that the Jewish Yishuv faced incessantly. It was nothing more than playing the game by "their" rules but, as has always been the case, we are not allowed to play the game by "their" rules.

But, one thing is certain - it was a unique one-time event. It occurred on April 9, 1948 (5 weeks before the Brits finally called it quits) and nothing comparable happened before it or after it. It had a number of positive repercussions - (1) it was a successful attack and (2) it indeed let the Arabs know that this game is for keeps. But it had plenty of negative ones as well. It became the showcase event that we Jews can be just as savage and "atrocious" as our foes and certainly gave the Arabs and their sympathizers grounds for continuing the atrocities that they never seemed to need any grounds for. And, ever since, this event has been molded and melded into the Arab lament of "senseless persecution" and opression at the hands of the Jewish "savages". It has been hailed as the Arab Alamo.

Remember the Alamo! Remember Deir Yassin!

In terms of a showcase event, Deir Yassin had a long shelf life. Whenever Arab sympathizers wanted to portray Jewish "savagery" it was Deir Yassin. Always Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin yesterday and Deir Yassin today. For decades. Always Deir Yassin. Only Deir Yassin.

And why?

Because there is nothing but Deir Yassin. Despite numerous flaws in its claim to savagery, it was always all there was. There was nothing else to point to except Deir Yassin. Nothing else ever happened to prove that Deir Yassin was standard operating procedure. And so, the Deir Yassin debacle has been kept alive on artificial respiration long beyond its life expectancy. Our antagonists have gotten a lot of mileage out of Deir Yassin. It's amazing how far it could go on an empty tank (maybe not, when so many people get out and push) but, eventually, it had to run out of gas. So, more recently, newer "atrocities" had to be fabricated. And so they came up with the al-Dura myth, the Goldstone libel and the flotilla fallacy.

But, it wasn't too long ago, even in the 1990s, that I was still reading, "Remember Deir Yassin". And I would feel a feeling of pride. Even 50 years after the event, our antagonists have nothing more current to defame us with other than the archaic Deir Yassin. ומי כעמך ישראל!

And this is the Deir Yassin Syndrome. When it becomes absolutely imperative to defame somebody and there is no current up-to-date dirt available. And the muck rakers resort to digging up old dirt from an historical era.

I have dealt with this a lot in my second life as a chareidi "apologist". There have been very few incidents of unprovoked violence within the chareidi world, even among the "kanayim". Many of the most celebrated incidents were far from the one-sided wolf vs. sheep stories they are made out to be, just like Deir Yassin. But, being all there is from the slim pickings, they are milked for all they are worth and replayed again and again.

This is the Deir Yassin Syndrome.

Currently, Deir Yassin is a very peaceful place. It is a residential complex for folks who suffer from Deir Yassin Syndrome and other psychiatric disorders. And right next to that is Kfar Shaul (a mental hospital). I prefer to view the Deir Yassin event in the most positive light. Especially because I live there close by. And I am not the only person whose name you can find in the "hashkafa" blogs who has a residence in the Deir Yassin Kfar Shaul Har Nof complex. Among the inmates residents are: Harav Moshe Sternbuch, Shlit"a, Rabbi Moshe Grylak, R' Jonathan Rosenblum, R' Menachem "Manny" Nissel, and... R' Dovid Orlofsky.

And here is where the Deir Yassin Syndrome comes to haunt us.

It is now Ellul 5770 and our self proclaimed failed-Messiah, Rabbi Harry Maryles, needs to redeem his people and feed the frenzied masses that lust for his motzi shem rah macha'ahs. Rabbi Harry Maryles' soul is evidently completely pure, and he has no need for any personal pre Yom HaDin soul-searching. Thus, so as his Ellul should not be a total loss, he has magnanimously decided to devote his Ellul to searching other people's souls. And, for some strange reason, the unfortunate soul that Harry needs to purge belongs to Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky.

It seems that Harry, who does not have a living rebbe to look up to for inspiration, has become a chossid of one who calls his message "Failed Messiah". These two are definitely cut from the same cloth.

Failed Messiah somehow thinks that this is a good time to post some 5 1/2 year old clips that convey some misguided outbursts expressed by Rabbi Orlofsky at the heat of the Slifkin affair. 5 1/2 years ago! Apparently, it is never too late to malign R' Orlofsky and by association, Ohr Somayach, despite the fact that R' Orlofsky is no longer a member of their staff. And, of course, Ellul is the perfect time as Chazal say: תכלה שנה וקללותיה . (Let the year and its afflictions draw to an end.)

And now, Harry, the magnanimous soul-searcher has to alert everybody - based on these 5 year old clips and nothing else (Deir Yassin Syndrome!), what a kellalah Rabbi Orlofsky is. And don't forget Ohr Somayach!

And the King (Elvis Ve-Emunah) and Haman (Failed Messiah) sat down to rake muck, and the city of Deir Yassin Kfar Shaul Har Nof was perplexed.

We just don't get it. What's going on here? These clips are 5 1/2 years old (and I believe they come from the same speech!).

I know Rabbi Orlofsky. I live very close to him. I have attended many of his Motzaei Shabbos shiurim. He is a very passionate person. And it is those passions that have motivated him to devote his life to chinuch and kiruv. There isn't much personal glory in this. I can tell you that. It is absolutely l'shem shamayim. But, strong passions can be a double edged sword, and the same forces that enable a person to be a very effective and inspirational figure can also enable him (or her) to fly off the handle. And it happens to all most of us - on occasion. This is one explanation of what Chazal tell us: כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול ממנו.

And when these occasions are rare, it hardly characterizes the person. And if you can't come up with more than one incident to judge by, you can't even be certain that you are evaluating that one incident properly.

Just like Deir Yassin.

Now, I listened to the clips and I also think that they are way over the top. I think many people made mistakes in the course of the Slifkin affair. Some of whom with very long beards. And I also believe that our gedolim can be manipulated. But it's history. It's more than 5 1/2 years. These clips were said by a passionate person in the heat of the moment. And, from what I was told, Rabbi Orlofsky and Rabbi Weinreb have long ago kissed and made up.

But, Harry Maryles (as well as Failed Messiah and Natan Slifkin) has a long memory. And he has a mission to accomplish. We must not be allowed to forget. And sins cannot go unpunished. Yet I wonder:

Have you ever met Rabbi Orlofsky? Of his 100s of hours of taped lectures have you heard a single minute besides the two 5 year old 1.5 minute clips that makes you know everything? What personal connection do you have with Rabbi Orlofsky that it is a mitzvah to destroy him? What vast eternal plan is at stake that it is so necessary to write a post to assassinate the character of somebody who clearly does his work l'shem shamayim even if he has gone overboard on occasion? Harry, you are so good at identifying and broadcasting every current chillul Hashem, why must you resurrect old ones?

What's Harry's justification for the unmitigated Loshon Harah (if not Motzi Shem Rah) that he feels compelled to print in the middle of Ellul 5770? That he's making a macha'ah? For statements expressed 5 years ago and not since?

Has he lost (what's left of) his marbles??

And now, here comes Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein and he goes out of his way to join ranks with - of all "people" - Harry Maryles and Failed Messiah! Eh tu, Brutus?? You are with them? I used to respect you as a gifted and rational writer. But if you are going to be mapil pur with these sonei Yisrael, (or Kohein, in this case), you lost me. I actually hit the eject button when you threw in the line - "(to whose ankles in Torah R. Orlofsky will never rise)".

Have you sunk to playing the "measuring" game? (R' Reuven will never reach the shoelaces of R' Shimon in Torah who will never reach the ankles of R' Levi in Avoda who will never reach the kneecaps of Don Luigi in chessed who will never reach the gartel of R' Tom in dveikus who will never reach the navel of R' Dick in yirah who will never reach the pippik of R' Harry in gaavah anavah who will never reach the breita pleitzis of the middle linebacker for the Pittsburg Steelers who...)

Spare me. Even though I will never come down to the toenails of Rabbi Adlerstein, when one resorts to playing the "measuring game" among contemporaries, he becomes one-dimensional and pretentious.

And he can also fall prey to the Deir Yassin Syndrome.

For better or worse, Ohr Somayach, Darkei Bina and Ohr Lagolah have been moving on and doing their work for the past 5 years with no major upheavals. Why are they all of a sudden at a crossroads now? What incalculable harm is looming for 5771 when you cannot attribute sins to Rabbi Orlofsky any more recently than 5765?

I think it's incalculable because Rabbi Adlerstein is dividing by zero.

I just don't get it.

Failed Messiah, Harry Maryles and Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein. From New York to Chicago to California. There must be some connection with having a "rosh katan" and a long memory.

Yeah - Remember the Alamo! Remember Deir Yassin! Remember the Slifkin fiasco! Remember Miriam Shears!

Remember Yetzias Mitzrayim!

Remember Amalek!

Remember the Shabbos and keep it holy!

Remember Maamad Har Sinai!

Remember how we angered G-d in the desert!

Remember Miriam and her Loshon Harah!!!! Remember what Hashem your G-d did to Miriam...

ותקבל ברחמים וברצון סדר זכרונותנו

Lipkin's Parallelogram

All of my steady readers know that I follow Emes VeEmunah. Not that I think anyone should read his blog, but, for my line of work, it goes with the territory. Rabbi Maryles has made it his mission in life to find, expose and amplify every "defect" in the chareidi world - real or imagined - and to criticize his poor misguided brothers.

Only he calls it - "making a macha'ah".

I don't want to digress too far from my subject and express what I think about it. Let's just say there are many issues that people don't know about, won't know about, and won't care to know about until people like him first broadcast it on the Internet just so that they can "make a macha'ah". I don't really think there is any mitzvah to first meet the classical pashut pshat of לא תלך רכיל בעמך (the heter of 3 people definitely does not apply according to the Chofetz Chaim in Shmiras HaLashon 2:2) just to be mekayem הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך . But that's just my opinion.

Still, in my line of work as official chareidi apologist, I have to know what he says. Whether his kavanos are לשם שמים or not, he is clearly a קטיגור a "prosecutor". And I am a סניגור , an "apologist". I will take the saneigor position over the kateigor position any day.

So I follow his blog and I comment on it when I feel I have something to contribute. I try to be brief. My method is to merely make a point, not to "prove" it. It never pays to elaborate in the comments section. So if I want to elaborate on a subject I do it here. If I need to impress a point on somebody else's blog (like Harry's), I try to draw the reader to what I may have already written in my own forum. (Play with home field advantage!)

I did just that about a week ago when Rabbi Maryles was "making a macha'ah" about recent incidences of violence in RBS-B involving some chareidi hooligans . As he often does, Harry took somebody else's post and used it as a launching pad for his fireworks display. In this case it was Rabbi Natan Slifkin's account as related on his blog.

I don't want to comment directly about the incident because (aside that, just like Harry, I wasn't there) that would sidetrack us. Kanaos is a very complicated subject. Let me state for the record, that I am just as apalled and ashamed that this violence is going on as is anybody. Even a trip to the emergency room that doesn't R"L go all the way to the morgue is sh'fichas damim. And Jews have no business encroaching on Uncle Eisav's territory.

I personally do not believe it is proper for anybody to introduce these incidents into the media. Not Rabbi Slifkin even though he lives there and certainly not Rabbi Maryles who doesn't nor anybody. I think that if somebody is close enough to do something - go do it. For those who aren't close, who needs to know about it?

And making sure that everybody - even those who can have no influence on it - knows about it is what Chaza"l call רכילות .

Now chareidim are by definition religious idealists and idealism is just one step away from zealotry. So kanaos comes with the territory. Some of it is לשם שמים and some of it is not. If it is not לשם שמים , it amounts to a street brawl. When brawls like this take place, it is obviously quite a Chillul Hashem. And Chillul Hashems are a no-no.

We learn the concept of Chillul Hashem from the pasuk in Vayikra 22:32 that says:

וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת-שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

The transgression of Chillul Hashem and the mitzva of V'nikdashti (Kiddush Hashem) apply to all of Bnei Yisroel. This means that we are all responsible to see to it that there are no Chillul Hashems. All of us. Chillul Hashems are not always the work of individuals. Sometimes there are partners. When people are partners in Chillul Hashem, it doesn't matter who owns more shares in the partnership. 50-50, 60-40, 90-10. It doesn't matter. Just like a business parnership, every partner is 100% responsible the liabilities of the corporation from the perspective of the creditors.

And so, as I question the wisdom of Rabbis Maryles and Slifkin to discuss these issues in the public arena in the first place, I even more question their wisdom and authority to lace it with laying blame as to which partner is liable.

They both are.

When Jews fight Jews we must decry the violence by all means. But not by pointing fingers. Or laying blame. Because, as I have written in post after post after post, there is always enough blame to go around. And, unless the side you are rooting for had absolutely nothing to contribute, and had no alternative but to get involved, their involvement is just as voluntary as anyone else's. And they are a partner in the Chillul Hashem.

I have written numerous posts to try and impress this point. To follow is a brief list of some of the most celebrated entries:

• We are not Judging Him, We are Judging You


• G-d the Father and Father the G-d


• Posts that I Haven't Published


• Absolving the Casualty

And so, finally, I can get to the point of this post.

When Rabbi Maryles discussed this incident and used it as another pretense for a wholesale condemnation of the RBS-B chareidi (kanai) community, there were a few voices who pointed out that, in this particular incident, there are some valid grounds to assert that there was blatant provocation. Ensuing commenters quickly rejoined with the lame "excessive response" claim which they don't buy when the UN slaps it on the Medinah but it still needs to apply to the chareidim. "Just because I stomped on your toe doesn't mean that you are justified to kick me in the groin".

To weigh in on this, I entered a comment with nothing more than a link to my essay about Absolving the Casualty (link provided above). My site meter tells me that quite a few readers checked out the link.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Slifkin territory, the same debate was being played out led by an anonymous poster who later slightly modified his ID to Ani-Nimaas. This fellow, evidently an avid chassid of mine, was thoughtful enough to transfer my link onto Rabbi Slifkin's thread. When he did transfer the link, it was in response to a gentleman who calls himself Menachem Lipkin.

Well, Mr. Lipkin actually took the trouble to read my essay (which I appreciate) and here are his comments:

According to Hirshman, virtually no terror victim in Israel is truly a "victim" since the terrorists define our being here as a provocation. You realize how bizarre that is? If a woman is walking on the sidewalk in our neighborhood, but in view of theirs and she's not dressed according to their absurd Tznious rules then, according to Hirshman, she's not really a victim.

And this is what I want to comment on here and the subject of this post (finally). Mr. Lipkin is employing a device that I have encountered numerous times in my blogging career. And in the world of mathematics, it is known as Lipkin's Parallelogram. It means taking a concept that I wrote, and drawing a parallel to something that I didn't write and treating it as if I did.

This device was actually invented in 1864 by Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin in St. Petersburg. And, according to one web site, it is a "mechanical device for the change of linear into circular motion" (Wikipedia says the opposite). And ever since, people have been taking things that I have written straightforward (linear) and have been bending and twisting them and thus changing them from linear into circular reasoning.

Let's check what I wrote with the main points emphasized:

A victim is typically an unarmed or non-aggressive party who was the target of an aggressive event (attack) and was physically, financially, or emotionally harmed (as in massacred). A victim is one who had no personal control over the situation and did not have the resources, the opportunity or the presence of mind to avert or flee the scene of the harmful event. Typically, a victim was not confronted and presented with demands and ultimatums before being attacked. Someone is truly victimized when they have done nothing of substance to contribute to the event that harmed them. A true victim is somebody who was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Conversely, one who knowingly and needlessly exposes themselves to a hazardous situation or willfully engages in a physical confrontation (e.g. General Custer) and is harmed, is not known to be a victim but a casualty. Terrorists attack civilians and those civilians are victims of a massacre. Combatants confront each other and inflict casualties. We say that one is a victim of an attack but we do not say that one is a victim of a confrontation. In a confrontation, one is not a victim but a casualty. Thus I have a very hard time calling General Custer and his men victims. Nor would I call Riff of the Jets a victim of Bernardo. Especially since he is the one who called the rumble.

Mr. Menachem Lipkin is applying this device to what I wrote. And, unlike the original device devised by Mr. Yom Tov Lipkin, in this one there are two flaws in how my words are applied. One minor flaw and one major one.

The first flaw, Mr. M. Lipkin almost catches himself:

According to Hirshman, virtually no terror victim in Israel is truly a "victim" since the terrorists define our being here as a provocation. You realize how bizarre that is?

But, evidently, he let it slide. Yes, I also think it's bizarre. So bizarre that I would expect an intelligent person to immediately ascertain that it is not what I meant, especially since it is not what I wrote. Since when did I make any definitions contingent on what the attacker - terrorist - thinks (or "defines")? My definition was totally based on what the victim/casualty does! I wrote that if the subject is non-aggressive, had no personal control over the situation, or nothing of substance to contribute to the event, then they are indeed victims. This definition is not to be mitigated by overly sensitive, trigger happy terrorists.

Now, there was another commenter who called himself "Distant American" who also noticed how bizarre Lipkin's Parallelogram by expanding the naarishkeit even further:

You could argue further and say that according to Hirshman unless you denounce being jewish, there are no victims of anti-semitism. A person who's property is stolen is not a victim, only a casualty because by having the property accessible to a thief, they enabled the thief to take it.

Though I will never know if his intention is to point out to Mr. M. Lipkin his folly and he is a rational thinker or if he is agreeing with him and is just as asinine (oh my gosh, there's two of them?), but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. What I do want to point out is his mashal about stolen property. Because to illustrate my point, just approach your local insurance agent (I did).

To the unendowed, the circumstances in my definition of a non-victim (knowingly and needlessly exposes, willfiully engages) as opposed to the victim (no personal control, etc.) can be summarized in one word:

Negligence!

When somebody is negligent, they are not a victim. Thus, if somebody has a car and a thief breaks into it and steals it, his insurance will cheerfully reimburse him becasue he wasn't negligent. But, let's suppose he leaves the door unlocked, the keys in the ignition and the motor running, unless he can make a good case for human error (which is covered), he will have a pretty hard time collecting from the insurance because they will claim gross negligence.

Since I have noticed that many people including Mr. M. Lipkin and perhaps Distant American have trouble with this concept, I have written these two posts:

• Guilt by Association
• Good Questions Deserve Good Answers

Now, that was the minor flaw. But here is what I consider a more significant flaw in Lipkin's Parallelogram:

According to Hirshman...

According to Hirshman?

Does anybody ever notice that Hirshman bases his ideologies (all of them) on pasukim and chazals and whenever Hirshman writes things like this , Hirshman always brings down the sources that he is basing it on?

Many people don't. Lipkin doesn't, Harry Maryles doesn't, Dallas Jew doesn't and two of the fellows who commented on my previous post do not. And the list goes on.

So let's discuss the essay on hand. In this case, when I discussed the Torah's view on victimhood I made a casual reference to the story of Dina in Breishis and the Rashi on pasuk 34:1. There Rashi does not spell out that Dina carries some measure of blame, though it is implied, but my major source is the story of the betrothed virgin in Devarim 22:23. There Rashi (from the Sifri) spells it out in big bold letters. (Other sources I could have brought and did not are Devarim 4:15 and Mishlei 22:5 - see Kesubos 30a).

Though I really wouldn't mind taking credit, if I learn something from Rashi (and Sifri) and use it as my model, then it is truly Rashi's concept. So my question to Mr. Lipkin is twofold:

1) According to Hirshman?? You mean according to Hirshman and not according to Rashi?? What do you have against giving credit to Rashi?

Oh, I know the obvious answer. According to Hirshman I can make a ridiculous extrapolation that I myself call "bizarre". But Rashi obviously doesn't mean that. It is too bizarre.

2) Well, Mr. Lipkin, if Rashi doesn't mean it that way, why on earth do you assume that Hirshman means it that way?

So let me give it to you straight. Hirshman means what Rashi means. If Rashi doesn't mean it, then Hirshman doesn't mean it either. If it's too bizarre for Rashi, it is too bizarre for Hirshman.

Now many people in the blogosphere seem to be intimidated by Hirshman. Hirshman is arrogant and condescending and polemical and satanic and has a "harsh attitude".

For what?

For reminding people what Chazal and Rashi say.

What is the problem?

The problem is that people don't want to hear what Rashi and Chazal say. Because they will have a tough time ignoring them and calling themselves legitimate. So if they pretend that Hirshman is the one who is saying it and it is not really the words of the Tanach or Chazal or Rashi, they can twist it so it sounds bizarre and soothe their consciences. Much harder to do that with Rashi.

There are shelves full of books that remind people about what Chazal say. Things people don't want to know or be reminded about.

They are called mussar books.

For the past 150 years there have been a few brave Jews who are not afraid to study the polemical thoughts of Chazal. And the movement to do so was initiated by a man named Rabbi Yisrael Lipkin.

He was the father of the musser movement. And he was also the father of Yom Tov Lipkin, the creator of the Lipkin Parallelogram. That parallelogram was proven to work. But the parallelogram that was introduced by Mr. Menachem Lipkin has two flaws. The first, as I said, is, instead of changing circular motion to linear (the real effect as documented in Wikipedia), it changes straightforward, linear "motion" to circular.

And the second flaw is that he has trouble acknowledging the basis in Chazal. Sadly, Mr. Lipkin is afraid of Rabbi Lipkin.

Postscript:
There were a number of points that I wanted to make with this post. That said, let me repeat that I am also distressed at what has been going on in RBS-B. My definition of chareidi is one who does mitzvos with ameilus b'Torah and kanaos that is not לשם שמים can have no part in it.

YH

Book 2 and The Eye of the Storm

Those of you who are familiar with my book (i.e., read the whole thing or have the misfortune of being related to me) are aware that it is a 2-part project.

To rehash:

Book 1 - the one that exists - is meant to present the hashkafos of the chareidi/Torah-oriented/One Above world to those who don't understand it (no small group).

Book 2 - not yet published - is meant to apply the hashkafos to the "raging" issues of observant Judaism to show how they play out in the field and why. These would include hot topics such as: State of Israel and army service, work vs. learning, technology and Internet, beis din and agunos, geirus (new addition), kanaos, mehadrin kashrus (and buses?), eruvim, chareidi miscreants and שאר ירקות. Incidentally, a chapter about chareidim who go off the derech (OTD) was included in Book 1.

It goes without saying that Book 2 stands to be the more juicier, confrontational and perhaps "mud-slinging" volume. As such, every so often somebody from my tiny group of fans asks me "When is Book 2 coming out?" to which I am forced to answer, "Currently, there is no scheduled release and, currently, there is no release to schedule."

Or, in other words, I have suspended the second half of the project for the time being.

And why?

There are a whole slew of reasons. Among them:

• Resources - Books require a lot of time for writing and editing and a lot of money for typesetting and printing. For Book 1, I was blessed with adequate supplies of both. This is no longer the case.
  


• Poor Yield - Although One Above and Seven Below has successfully made a name for itself and commands the respect it deserves, it is not as sought after as I would have hoped it to be. In other words, sales are fair but disappointing.
  


• People don't read- An extention of the previous point is that people do not have the time or patience to read like they used to. The world of books is suffering terribly from competition from more stimulating media as well as from an over-abundance of books. All booksellers (and authors) that I have spoken to are complaining about this.

But I think the trump point is that the hashkafos of the chareidi world (Book 1) are steadfast and unchanging. As such, it is not much of a challenge to start writing a book in 2003 and publish it in 2007 and it can be just as relevant in 2017 and 2027.

Not so the issues. Our world is changing every day um hour um minute so that some issues may suddenly lose their relevance and others take their place in the spotlight. As an example, the issue of the chareidi's disdain for army service is not nearly as hot a topic after the universal disillusionment of the disengagement (2005), the surplus in manpower or the success of Nachal Chareidi. Conversely, I initially (in 2003) never thought to address the chareidi approach to conversion. Now, however, a work that overlooks geirus issues would be incomplete at best.

Writing a book on current issues is like trying to change a tire on a moving truck!

And for that reason I have opened this blog where I can present my message in a more popular forum (the Internet) in bite-size pieces and present the material for immediate consumption while the issues are current. I have shifted my limited time and energies in this direction.

In short, this blog is in effect a substitute for Book 2. As a side effect, it has held me back from working directly on Book 2. Nevertheless, I do not consider this delay to be detrimental for a number of reasons.

One is that I have learned so much about the world of the "Seven Below" - the scoffers, the cynics, the antagonists, and the "centrists" - over my 20 months of blogging that I am much more prepared to deal with issues on "their" terms than I would be if I had not delayed Book 2.

And a second reason is that, in the interim, another "spokesman" from the chareidi world, and one considerably older, more erudite, more articulate, and more venerable and acclaimed than I has taken the trouble of writing a version of Book 2 in my stead.

And, with this, I wish to pay tribute to HaRav Aharon Feldman, Shlita and his superb book: The Eye of the Storm.

And, from what I understand, this book is selling like hotcakes.

I first got wind of the book about 2 months ago when my son, Yaakov, who was working afternoons at Manny's in Meah Shearim told me told me that a book came out by Harav Aharon Feldman that was very similar to mine. He offered to get me a copy with his employee discount, but I had a better idea. I got the book at retailer's cost from Rav Feldman's son (Rav Eliyahu) who lives in the building next to mine.

I wanted to be one of the first people on the blogosphere to review the book (okay, it was way too late for Slifkin from last November) but I suffered from one handicap - I wanted to read it first. So it was hard to compete with some other reviewers eid-m'pi-eid commenters who didn't bother to read the book at all.

To generalize, the purpose of his book is identical to the purpose of mine, but he says it better: A calm view of raging issues. It is meant to present the perspective of the chareidi/Torah/One Above world on current issues in an effort to restore some calm.

Now, in my Book 1, my approach is to focus on the hashkafos and, through understanding them, to set the stage for dealing with the issues. His book approaches from the opposite direction - to deal with the issues and, through them, to present an understanding on the hashkafos.

I believe that this is a more effective approach (and the sales figures seem to bear it out) and it is the approach I had in mind for Book 2. So, to some extent, he has saved me the trouble of writing Book 2.

Now, of course, he doesn't nearly cover the full list of issues that I presented at the top of this post and, conversely, some of the topics that he does discuss, notably his discussions about homosexuality and Messianic Lubavitchers, are things that I did not want to touch in my book (though I posted a blog about homosexuality HERE).

The primary overlap issue is his discussion about secular Zionism which I planned to discuss as a preamble to the army issue (which he does not elaborate upon). Needless to say, I am in full agreement with him on the topic. Another overlap is his discussion on feminism which I did indeed deal with briefly in my Book 1 on pages 161-168. His main point is that women are not required to perform certain mitzvos and, thus, these mitzvos are not priority aspects of Avodas Hashem for a woman. As such, the drive for a woman to perform these mitzvos regardless is more born from self gratification than a longing for Avodas Hashem. This is the identical message that I present in my book.

In other points of "collusion" Harav Feldman, Shlita, has an essay about Daas Torah where he clarifies that Daas Torah does not mean overruling the opinions of experts on civil or medical matters but rather it means adding Torah based considerations into the cholent of secular or scientific considerations as an integral part of the process of formulating a course of action. I do not discuss this form of Daas Torah but I do have a chapter about Rabbinic Authority in Book 1 (Cops and Rabbis).

In his book, there is one chapter that is more an overview on chareidi hashkafa than a position on a "raging" issue titled: Credo of Credence. Likewise, in my Book 1, I present my deepest, most scholarly discussion on chareidi hashkafa in a chapter titled: Getting to the Heart of the Matter. The highlight of his chapter is a commentary from the Vilna Gaon in Shir HaShirim which declares that there are only 2 actual mitzvos: Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha and all positive mitvos are manifestations of Anochi Hashem and all negative mitzvos are manifestations of Lo Yihiye Lecha. The highlight of my chapter is a commentary from the Maharsha in Maseches Makkos which declares that there are only 2 actual mitzvos: Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha and all positive mitvos are manifestations of Anochi Hashem and all negative mitzvos are manifestations of Lo Yihiye Lecha.

So as Harav Feldman zeros in on The Eye of the Storm, he presents the hashkafos that are universally upheld in the chareidi world. It is natural that we see the storm "eye-to-eye". That said, there was one essay in which I am not in complete agreement. Most of you can probably guess - it is his overview on the Slifkin affair. I may want to elaborate on where I disagree and why, but if so, it will have to wait for a separate post. Likewise, I did see the review penned by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein and I have much to comment on it. This, too, will have to command its own post.

All in all, I certainly agree with my son Yaakov that Harav Feldman's book is both a compliment and a complement to mine. His book is much more practical and much less theoretical than mine is. Also it is a bit shorter with larger print and, of course, it has the eloquence and succinct delivery that Harav Feldman is known for. So it adds up to a more comfortable and less tedious read.

I highly recommend it and, more so, I strongly urge anybody who has read my book or who rejected my book to experience Harav Feldman's approach.

Because our mission in life is to outlast the storm.