Questions about the story of Joseph.

The story of Joseph has always been a "Mystery wrapped in an enigma". To put it bluntly the story makes very little sense. The commentators' modern and ancient have struggled to answer these few fundamental questions:

1. Why doesn't Joseph send a message to his father after he becomes king of Egypt?

2. Joseph left home when he was seventeen. How is it that his brothers do not recognize him? the Midrash answer "that he grew a beard" seems a little nonsensical. This question becomes even harder when you consider that in all likelihood all of Egypt knew the story of the boy slave turned king. How did the brothers not hear it?

3. The "proof" that Joseph asks his brothers to show that they are not spies, is just pointless and seems to have no internal logic. There really isn't any proof that the brothers are not spies just because they "were born of one father". Having another brother, is certainly no better proof. It is unclear what having another brother proves, nor what is to stop the brothers bringing some other child and claiming that he is Benjamin?

4. Even given that the brothers did not recognize Joseph when they first met him, Joseph seems to throw so many clues their way that it is a further mystery that they did not pick up on it. Joseph:

•  Uses phrases particular to their family, such as mentioning God, The Gods of their fathers etc..
• Punishes Shimon above the rest of them (traditionally the Midrash explains that Shimon was chosen as he was the one who threw Joseph into the pit.)
•  Seats the brothers in the correct order of their birth.
• Clearly shows that he is not Egyptian since Egyptians will not eat bread with him.  
•  Asks them to bring Benjamin with them.
• Joseph singles out and honors Benjamin above the other brothers by giving him 5 fold servings of food and later riches.

I've searched and searched but have not found any convincing answers, certainly not one that answers all the questions. In the next week I'll try and review some of the answers the commentators have given, but I am interested to hear if anyone has original answers to these questions. 

About R.Dovbears Yosef's bible passage

Dovbear surprises me by attacking Harav Yosef's recent comment that the fires in the Carmel were punishment for not keeping Shabbos. Its not so much the criticism, which I can fully understand in this case, but rather the peculiar and inherently flawed argument he uses. Dovbear attacks Harav Ovadia's usage of the gemorah quote, and shows that the biblical passage it was based on, was clearly not meant as anything but a one off warning.

A closer look at this passage from Jeremiah in its context makes it clear that the prophet was castigating the Jews of Jerusalem for their lax approach to observance of Shabbat, and promising them that if they do not change their ways, Jerusalem, its gates and its palaces would be destroyed – this is just one small section of a book filled with warnings against the people living in the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the first Temple at the hands of the Babylonians in 586 BCE. THIS IS NOT AN ETERNAL CATCH-ALL PROPHECY AND SHOULD NOT BE READ AS SUCH. The interpretation offered in Rav’s name and cited here in the Talmud serves to introduce a full page of theories as to why the first Temple was destroyed, each theory presenting an interpretive reading of a different Biblical passage.

So basically your criticism is that the Judah son of R. Samuel WHO STATED IN THE TALMUD "An [outbreak of] fire occurs only in a place where there is desecration of the Sabbath, for it is said, But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day and not to bear a burden …" TOOK SOMETHING OUT OF CONTEXT?? well if we are going to start arguing that line, I guess we might as well just go Karaite. Taking things out of context, is what those Tanaim and Amoraim were all about.

Sorry Dovbear. Regardless of what the bible says, there can be little doubt that the Talmud did theorize a connection between not keeping shabbat and fires. You may not like the usage of the passage, or the pretensions of knowing God's will that the use of the passage entails, but the intention of the talmud is fairly clear. 

For a better and more learned criticism of Harav Ovadia's statment read this article (Hebrew) by Harav Yoel Ben Nun. 

Biblical origins of Hanukah

The wars of the Maccabbees remembered in Hanukah occur during the days second temple. How is it then, that the date of Hanukah is already referred to in the prophecies of Haggai?

Haggai Chapter 2: 

10 In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,

11 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,…

15 And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD…

18 Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.

20 And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,

21 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;

22 And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.

23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

Ninth month = Kislev. The prophecy is clearly the day of the beginning of the building of the second temple, or the day before as is learned from verse 15 "15 And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the LORD:" and verse 18 "18 Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD's temple was laid, consider it.". 

This surprising connection to Hanukah was first made by Harav Emdin in the book מור וקציעה (סימן תר"ע translated below. Harav Emdin suggests that it is because of the founding of the temple that the word Hanukah comes from, and that the miracle of the Oil happened because of the significance of that day. (I apologize for the rough translation):

For the meaning of the name Hanukkah, I have discovered a new thing, with the help of God, that it is so named on the founding of the temple that was at that same time at the days of Haggai the prophet. As it is written in his prophecy that on the 24th of the ninth (that is Kislev), it was founded and on the next day it was Holies in sacrifice ...

And from here a great support to the practice of people to make meals and make merriment. And the Achronim were in difficulty to explain all of these customs. And with this I answer the question of the Beit Yosef, that the first day should not have been counted. And I say that they made the first day, in remembrance of the temple which they lit (the menorah- B.T) at the begining of the second temple. More, perhaps the credit of that day where they founded the second temple by lighting the menorah, was why they had a miracle on that same date and found the Kad...

בטעם שם חנוכה, נראה לי דבר חדש, בע"ה, שנקרא כן, על שם חינוך ההיכל, שהיה בזמן הזה בימי חגי הנביא. ככתוב בנבואתו שבעשרים וארבעה לתשיעי שהוא כסלו, הוסד ולמחרתו חנכוהו בהקרבה (אעפ"י שלא נבנה הבית עדיין כדאיתא במדרש, וכעניין שאמרו מקריבין אעפ"י שאין בית) ובהדלקה מבערב שאין מחנכין המנורה אלא בין הערביים כמו ששנינו במנחות. ועל שם חנוכת הבית נקראים ימי נס הנרות שאירע באותו פרק חנוכה. ויש מכאן סעד גדול למה שנהגו לעשות סעודות ולהרבות קצת שמחה. והאחרונים ז"ל נדחקו בכל זה. ועם זה אני מיישב גם כן קושיית הבית יוסף, שהיה ראוי לבל יהיה ראשון מן השמונה ימים מן המניין. ואומר אני שעשו זיכרון ליום ראשון, לכבוד ההיכל שהדליקו בו תחילה בבית שני. ועוד, אולי זכות זה היום לפי שחינכוהו להיכל בו תחילה על-ידי הדלקת מנורה, עמד להם שנעשה להם בו הנס, שמצאו הפך. וכיוצא בזה מציינין הרבה במדרשות, שהיום גורם להיעשות בו נס. וכדברי הרמב"ן ז"ל, במקומות הרבה מפירוש התורה, שזהו שארז"ל מעשה אבות סימן לבנים. שכל נסים העתידים צריכים לנחלה לפועל דמיון, ונרמז הכול במקרא, שבכל דבר נס נעשה דוגמתו תחילה. א"כ זה היום הוא עיקר הנס בכללו וסיבתו, וזה נכון מאוד אף שלא שיערוהו הקדמונים".

We can speculate that some festival commemorating the foundation of the second temple existed before the Hasmonean dynasty. A further hint that this date already had a religious significance can be found in Maccabees I chapter 1 verse 59:

54 Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;

...

59 Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God. 

The Greeks chose the date of the 25th of Kislev to start the pagan sacrifices on the alter. Why that date? could it be because it already had a religious significance?

Harav Zini "Where are the rabbanim who claimed we shouldn't fast for rain?"

The website Srugim has been working fast, and Quotes Harav Zini Rosh Yeshiva of the little known Hesder Yeshivah in Haifa. Below is my very fast translation, and the hebrew original.

"To our sorrow and loss, this is a clear rebuke to those fools who think themselves great men, who dared this week to raise themselves to the level of Poskim and tell the public, without any shame, and with no humility that they shouldn't listen to the Rabbanut Harashit, and even dared argue that there is no need in a fast for rain, because today there is no danger to life by lack of rain."

לצערנו ולדאבוננו, זו תשובה ניצחת ונוראה לאותם כסילים החושבים עצמם עידית האדם, שהתיימרו בשבוע זה להעלות את עצמם למדרגת פוסקים ולטעון ברבים, ללא בושה, ללא כל צניעות שאין לשמוע לרבנות הראשית, ואף העיזו לטעון שאין צורך בתענית גשמים, כיון שאין בימינו חשש לסכנת חיים בהעדר גשמים."

These words are clearly aimed at Harav Moshe Lichtenstein. I am shocked by Rav Zini's lack of respect towards Harav Lichtenstein. His style is unbecoming of a rabbi talking about a leader of another Hesder Yeshivah, and I hope that this style is merely the result of his grief.

Security camera in Haifa University shows the flames begining..

This footage was taken by a security camera in Haifa University. The fire can first be noticed at 1:15.

We "Pasken" that God Must stop the fire

I'm afraid I don't really have time to blog. I was meant to go to Haifa for Shabbat, and suddenly discovered that I have to prepare shabbat at home.

Kikar Hashabat has a headline that Harav Amar with a Beit Din gave a ruling that GOD must stop the fire. I've not had time yet to listen to the 20 minute videos attached, but the top video does seem to back up their headline. Outside of the Talmud, and some Holocaust stories I've not seen this kind of action before. I'm not even sure how literally you are meant to understand this - is it more of a prayer, or does he really think that there is some extra - power in a psak din to make god more merciful?

A bad year for the Dreidel

It seems the dreidel is having a bad year. Howard Jacobson bashed it in this NYT op-ed:

"How many years did I feign excitement when this nothing of a toy was produced? The dreidel would appear and the whole family would fall into some horrible imitation of shtetl simplicity, spinning the dreidel and pretending to care which character was uppermost when it landed. Who did we think we were — the Polish equivalent of the Flintstones?"

The Dreidel is being bashed on Tablet Magazine as well in their post "The Unbearable Dumbness of Dreidel":

See the problem? The game is over basically right after it’s begun! At best, it turns into some weird and boring stalemate-cum-lesson on fractions, in which you learn that if you keep halving a pile you will never get to zero. Moreover, the game requires none of those characteristics—wit, ingenuity, or even brute strength—that the Maccabes used to vanquish those evil Syrian bastards two thousand-plus years ago.

Perhaps a sole light in the dark for the dreidel is this new Guiness book of records set yesterday - 618 dreidels spun simultaneously! (why not 613 I ask?).



However it isn't really the dreidel's fault. The dreidel is a relatively new-comer to Jews. According to this Seforim post, the dreidel has only been with us 200 years or so.

Despite all of these explanations, in truth, dreidel is not Jewish in origin. Rather, driedel is really the rather old game of teetotum. Teetotum, which uses a top with four sides and four letters is one and the same with dreidel. The letters that appear on the dreidel are really just the Hebrew letters that appear on a German or Yiddish teetotum, G, H, N, S. G= ganz (all), H halb (half), N nischt (nothing) and S schict (put). Teetotum dates back to at least the 16th century long before we have any Jewish allusions to dreidel(it was originally totum or top, but became TEEtotum due to the use of T for take all, on the top). The well-known depiction of children's games done by Brueghel in 16th century includes Teetotum(see here and here for the complete painting). The earliest Jewish mention of dreidel or the significance of it dates to the late 18th century.

Looking at the book אוצר מנהגי ישורון which is credited as being the first mention of the dreidel, I discovered that another game, was the game for Hanukah: CARDS!!

A quick Googling found me another Sephorim blog entery, which brought accounts of card playing on Hanukkah as early as 1584!

R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena writes about himself in his autobiography how "during Chanukah of the year 5355 (1594) Satan fooled me into playing games of chance causing me no small amount of damage.” (The Autobiography of a Seventeenth Century Venetian Rabbi, p. 97). R. Yakov Emden writes against this custom in his Meor Uketziah which he says people used to do on Chanukah [introduction to hilchos Chanukah and end of siman 670].

(I'll leave it to someone else to comment on the cross dressing minhag also mentioned there. Bloghead perhaps?)

So in conclusion. Dreidel out, poker in!

Advancing peace?

A great argument is being fought out in The New Republic regarding Wikileaks. On the one side we have a partial defence of wikileaks from John B. Judis "A Defense of Wikileaks: How it could actually improve U.S. foreign policy."

"Should this kind of information be known to the public? The administration says it should not. Referring to the leak about China and proliferation, a “senior administration official” told the Washington Post, “Clearly, you don’t want any information like this leaked illegally and disseminated to the public.” But I beg to differ. I think the public has a right to know about China’s willingness to arm Iran and North Korea. And I applaud Wikileaks for making this kind of material public. I would feel the same way if an enterprising reporter unearthed the relevant documents and published them in The New York Times. If Wikileaks is doing a disservice by indiscriminately airing classified dirty laundry, the U.S. government is doing its public a disservice by keeping this kind of information about China or Iran or about Afghanistan’s government secret."

On the other hand James P. Rubin points out in " The Irony of Wikileaks" points out that Wikileaks seems to have hurt their hard left ideological goals:

"By and large, the hard left in America and around the world would prefer to see the peaceful resolution of disputes rather than the use of military force. World peace, however, is a lot harder to achieve if the U.S. State Department is cut off at the knees. And that is exactly what this mass revelation of documents is going to do. The essential tool of State Department diplomacy is trust between American officials and their foreign counterparts. Unlike the Pentagon which has military forces, or the Treasury Department which has financial tools, the State Department functions mainly by winning the trust of foreign officials, sharing information, and persuading. Those discussions have to be confidential to be successful. Destroying confidentiality means destroying diplomacy. "

Tablet Magazine in a recent piece "Deadly Fictions" as well as Blogger/Atlantic editor Jeffery Goldberg (in every blog of his for the last 4-5 days) have pointed out that the leaks so far seem to prove that the right wing has had the far better grasp of the political situation in the Middle-East then the left. The Leaks so far have shown, that it is not the Israel Lobby pushing for a war on Iran - it is the Arab lobby which is pushing that agenda the hardest. 

So to sum it up. Wikileaks which is led by openly extreme left wing administration has made the likelihood of war that much higher. They have both destroyed or at least harmed the current Left Wing claims about the Middle-East and irrevocably harmed the one peaceful tool that is meant to prevent war. It seems the hard left is less concerned with peace, and more with undermining the United States.

29th Nov: Pictures from the IDF archive

These pictures of the 29th Nov 1947 - The UN decision of the creation of the state of Israel were released from the IDF archive 3 days ago.

This one is clearly Kikar Tzion. The back building has been torn down over the years, and is now the Mizrachi bank. 

Also a Jerusalem scene, though I'm not able to place it.

Outside the Sochnut building.

I think this is Nachalt Shivah, but I'm not sure about this one. The dome in the backround looks familiar. Anyone want to help me with this one?