Comments for Scorchin Torah and Strange Thoughts

Comment on Lenny Bruce Would Not Understand Vanessa Hidary, and nor do I? by moon glough

moon glough — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:05:40 +0000

i agree with anonymous. the rabbi seems to living in a cultural cocoon.

Comment on About Avi Weinstein by aviweinstein

aviweinstein — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:57:36 +0000

Well Alex,
Welcome to scorchintorah! Y’all come back now!

Comment on About Avi Weinstein by Alex Sagan

Alex Sagan — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:26:52 +0000

hi avi.

would you believe i found your blog by chance while googling to discern the fine points of b’shalom versus b’vracha?! you were the top hit.

kol tuv,

alex sagan

Comment on Half Shabbat Data: This Just In by Benjamin E.

Benjamin E. — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:25:03 +0000

I feel like to the extent it signals a crisis, it’s the result of Shabbos these days being so completely and primarily defined as “no electricity.” With that as the overriding experience of Shabbat, I can completely see how teenagers would be unable to frame texting as anything other than an incomplete form of Shabbat observance. I think R. Klapper’s got a very good point….

Comment on Yaakov Herzog, Arnold Toynbee, and Balam by Martin Fogel

Martin Fogel — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 00:16:39 +0000

Hi Rabbi Weinstein,

The question you asked about G-d’s permission is quite famous, the Vilna Gaon, among others, deals with it. His answer depends on a very precise look at the Hebrew, and centers on the difference in meaning between עם and את.

The word עם denotes being “with” not just in physical proximity to, but in spiritual or intellectual proximity. That is agreeing with and joining in with their goals. That is why nation is עם – a group of people who share the same goal not just the same location. The word את on the other hand just means in physical proximity.

Examine the verses. Verse 12 G-d says do not go with them (עמהם) i.e., do not join in their goal. Verse 20 , if they came to greet you go with them (אתם) that is you can accompany them physically, but do not join in their goal. Verse 21 Bilaam goes with them (עם), he joins and shares their goal. This is precisely what G-d told him not to do. Hence G-d’s anger at Bilaams direct disobedience.

I heard this from Rabbi Yisrael Reisman. Enjoy your posts and enjoyed your classes at the WebYeshiva. Gut voch

Comment on …and speaking of Paul Simon… by sigmonky

sigmonky — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:41:56 +0000

on YouTube there were almost 300,000 hits, 1125 likes and 5 dislikes. There were a few comments dealing with how to best rebuke the 5 dissenters. I don’t like a party pooper any more than the next Paul Simon fan, but I found these rebukes kind of disturbing.

Comment on So Beautiful, or So What? by Shawn Ruby

Shawn Ruby — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:28:57 +0000

Both Dylan and Simon will be here in Israel this summer (Cohen was here last year). Unfortunately, Simon is coming during the 3 weeks, leaving me with something of a dilemma…

Comment on Arnold and Dominique: The Arificial Distinction between Sins and Crimes by garycohen613

garycohen613 — Sun, 22 May 2011 18:42:52 +0000

Hey, Avi! (Greetings from Saint Anthony – I mean San Antonio – Teeeexas. I found your piece on sin and crime (against women) thoughtful and thought-provoking. My full comment is on your Facebook page.

BTW, you inspired me to create my own blog page on WordPress.com! We shall see what comes of it!

[BTW BTW, it’s (likely) no reflection on *you* (notice the wiggle room I left myself) I found two typos in your otherwise flawless post: they became grammatical errors: there/their and effect/affect. That’s the down side of auto-complete and spell check! The cure? Proofread and proofread again! *Down with spell check* (when used alone)! Ugh!

Comment on Chinese Parents, Western Parents…and then, there are…the Jews by Shimon S.

Shimon S. — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:32:36 +0000

Interesting. Unfortunately, Prof. Chua knows nothing of the many original forms of American parenting (dependent on geography and denomination), not to mention western parenting generally, or of why they have changed radically over the past 150 years. Odd for a professor at Elihu Yale’s school. It was the inevitable bleeding of the liberal political order (rights!) into the family, and the consequent destruction of the duty- and hierarchy- based forms of parenting that created the generations of American founders. In she comes, without this cultural history, and confidently states her superiority. It is true she has created a hybrid that fosters excellence: Rights and freedoms outside, duties inside. But in one generation her children and all other mothers of free children will have these problems, of course. No one is immune: not Chinese, not Jews (and this includes everyone, even Satmar). The challenge, and a subject far more interesting by a factor of ten, is how to raise excellent and virtuous people even under the liberal order. How do free people educate new generations of free people? She appears to have given no thought to any of this. Her version of Chinese motherhood is also a caricature, but that is another matter.

But the Jews are really your topic. In my opinion the culture > books, books > culture idea needs refining. On the relations between Greek and Jewish education may I suggest Elias Bickerman’s The Jews in the Greek Age, a fine posthumous book with more detail and deeper thought than his earlier efforts. Many of us reflexively create these dichotomies when Jews and Greeks come up, but they live only in the world of rhetoric, whether a Hanukkah derasha in 2011 or in the Talmud itself. You cannot build on them, plan with them, because they fall apart at the slightest touch. And yet we cannot stop doing it, because the Greeks are our “sci-fi twin,” so to speak; wherever we are, they are, from the Masoretic text to the Mishnah itself, and deeply affecting our educational ideals, even after the remove to Bavel (after 600+/- years of Gk influence).

Comment on Ms Palin, I think you meant “Scapegoat” dear, ‘blood libel’ is a bit of a misnomer. by Shimon S.

Shimon S. — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:13:55 +0000

No, she was quite right; “blood libel” is the most appropriate term: 1) Innocents were killed; 2) prejudiced people in positions of authority (previously the pulpit in most cases, now various parts of the mass media, blogosphere and political class) quickly accused a minority of guilt or complicity. If there had been even a bit of evidence to that effect, the whole discussion would have played out quite differently. In fact, there was some evidence of association with leftist thought to some degree, as became clear, but the preponderance of evidence points toward mental illness, laying bare the accusers’ bias. Gov. Palin was correct.