Sago Boulevard

From Ki Teitzei (Deut. 21:23):

…[Y]ou must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury him the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God.

The context here is the death penalty of sekilah (death by stoning). Rashi explains that “all who are put to death by stoning are hanged [afterwards]”. The Torah teaches that we are not to let the hanging body remain overnight, but the reason given (”for an impaled body is an affront to God”) requires explanation. Commenting on this verse, Rashi cites a fascinating drashah from Sanhedrin 46a:

“For an impaled body is an affront to God.” It is a degradation of the King, for man is made in the likeness of His image… This can be compared to identical twin brothers. One became a king while one became ensnared in banditry and was hanged. All who saw him would say “The king is hanging.”

So similar is the human body to God Himself that we’re worried somebody will mistake the former for the latter! The implications of this aggadah seem endless. Every year when I come across this Rashi I’m struck by how lofty a role the Torah accords to humanity. Even the most mundane aspects of life take on additional meaning when we appreciate that we are reflections of God.

I’m beginning law school at Fordham. Orientation was this week and classes start on Monday. While I’m excited to get started (anxious too, but more excited), I realize I won’t have nearly as much time to blog as I did last year and over the summer. On one hand, I don’t want to give up on Sago Boulevard. The main reason I started is because I have a lot to say. That hasn’t changed. If anything, law school will give me more things to think about. On the other hand, I only want to blog if I can do it well and blogging well takes time.

So what to do? The short answer is “we’ll see”. Blogging will be sparse for at least a few weeks while I get a handle on the workload. Hopefully, I’ll work out something that resembles a normal schedule and return to regular blogging before long. Stay tuned.

From Seinfeld, “The Alternate Side”:

Sid: Well I’m going down to visit my sister in Virginia next Wednesday, for a
week […]

Jerry: This Wednesday?

Sid: No, next Wednesday, week after this Wednesday.

Jerry: But the Wednesday two days from now is the next Wednesday.

Sid: If I meant this Wednesday, I would have said this Wednesday. It’s the
week after this Wednesday.

It came to me while watching this episode last night. “Next Wednesday” is just short for “the Wednesday of next week”. Makes sense, right? Just thought I’d share that.

Hirhurim’s R. Gil Student links to his front-page article in this week’s Jewish Press. He offers a summary of the controversy surrounding R. Natan (Nosson) Slifkin’s books reconciling recent scientific discoveries with the Torah’s account of creation. (His newest book, The Challenge of Creation, is sitting patiently on my bookshelf but with law school starting next week, it may be awhile before I get to it.)

The article is a good showcase of Gil’s rare ability to deal honestly with both halakhic and hashkafic (ideological) controversies while maintaining the high level of respect required in Torah discourse. This is far more difficult than it looks. On one hand, we’re required to give talmidei hakhamim the benefit of the doubt in all disputes and to refrain from ascribing ulterior motives to them. Yet abuses of power need to be called out if we take ourselves seriously at all. A line must be drawn somewhere but few know where it belongs. Gil, in both his blog posts and articles, toes the invisible-yet-necessary line well. His take on Slifkin is but one good example.

The phrase “pro-Israel” appears five times in this Foward article. Yet, interestingly, those described as “pro-Israel” have very little praise for it.

“Staunchly pro-Israel conservatives… say that Jerusalem is hindering America’s global war.” “Top Israeli officials… have been subject to unusually harsh criticism from the pro-Israel right…” Charles Krauthammer, who’s characterized as a “pro-Israel” neoconservative, “wrote a column insisting that Olmert’s ‘unsteady and uncertain leadership’ is threatening the Bush administration’s confidence in Israel as a dependable and strategic ally.”

What exactly does “pro-Israel” mean in this article? It clearly doesn’t mean “supportive of Israeli policy”, although it probably should. I suppose it might refer to well-intentioned criticism, as opposed to criticism which seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish State. But if that’s the case, there’s an obvious double-standard. Well-intentioned left-wing or moderate political writers and pundits who criticize Israeli policy aren’t called “pro-Israel”. Besides the double-standard, a news reporter shouldn’t be responsible for deciphering the intentions of the critics it cites.

I think we can put our politics aside for the moment and recognize this article for the irresponsible journalism that it is. By characterizing the neoconservative position as “pro-Israel” in an article entitled “Conservatives Slam Israeli War Strategy”, the Forward is making a clear political statement. Neoconservatism, says the Foward, is somehow intrinsically pro-Israel. It may be, but I thought I was reading a news article.

R. Soloveitchik in The Lonely Man of Faith:

[M]an is faced with an exasperating paradox. On the one hand, he beholds God in every nook and corner of creation, in the flowering of the plant, in the rushing of the tide, and in the movement of his own muscle, as if God were at hand close to and beside man, engaging him in a friendly dialogue. And yet the very moment man turns to face God he finds Him remote, unapproachable… enveloped in the cloud of mystery, winking to him from the awesome ‘beyond.’ Therefore, the man of faith, in order to redeem himself from his loneliness and misery, must meet God at a personal covenantal level, where he can be near Him and feel free in His presence.”

(via Susanna)

Ben Caspit proposes a speech for PM Ehud Olmert to “explain to the world exactly what we’re fighting for”.

The function of mourning in Halakhah is to guide us in properly channeling the natural emotions that accompany tragedy and despair. Indeed, the customs of Tishah Be’av and the kinot are nothing short of ritualized crying. Rather than rise above our emotions, we are commanded to embrace them and let them guide us to teshuvah (repentence). R. Soloveitchik develops this idea in “Avelut Yeshanah and Avelut Hadashah“:

Judaism does not want man to rationalize evil or to theologize it away. It challenges him to defy evil and, in case of defeat, to give vent to his distress. Both rationalizing and theologizing harden the human heart and make it insensitive to disaster. Man, Judaism says, must act like a human being. He must cry, weep, despair, grieve and mourn as if he could change the cosmic laws by exhibiting those emotions. In times of distress and sorrow, these emotions are noble even though they express the human protest against iniquity in nature and also pose an unanswerable question concerning justice in the world. The Book of Job was not written in vain. Judaism does not tolerate hypocrisy and unnatural behavior which is contrary to human sensitivity. Pain results in moaning, sudden fear and shrieking. The encounter with death must precipitate a showing of protest, a bitter complaint, a sense of existential nausea and complete confusion. I want the sufferer to act as a human being, God says. Let him not suppress his humanity in order to please Me. Let him tear his clothes in frustrating anger and stop observing mitzvot because his whole personality is enveloped by dark despair and finds itself in a trance of the senses and of the faculties. Let him cry and shout, for he must act like a human being.

What should the Jewish community’s response be to Mel Gibson’s apology? Personally, I just shrugged when hearing it on the radio. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t believe him when he says “I am not an anti-Semite”. But, you might say, what more could I want besides a (seemingly) heartfelt, public apology? For starters, it’ll take a lot more than mere words. Apologizing for making an antisemitic movie (”The Passion”) would help too, but I’m not holding my breath.