A blog-collage

1. There is a water fountain in my department whose water is so cold, that it frequently comes out as frozen slush rather than water.

2. In my thoughts, I recently found myself mixing up Philadelphia and Haifa when thinking of the place I currently live in. Guess it's easy to get those obscure college towns confused with one another.

3. Today I visited Har Eival and Yehoshua's altar there. It is quite an amazing site, and I believe that were it not for politics (we had to drive just a few hundred meters north of Shechem) it would be one of the country's most visited national parks.

As for the question of "so why is the altar in a place you can't see Har Gerizim from", the tour guide suggested that the blessings-and-curses ceremony (between Har Gerizim and Har Eival) was separate from the sacrificial ceremony. (And indeed, the Torah discusses the two ceremonies in separate passages.) The guide also pointed out the part of Har Gerizim and Eival where the hills form a natural bowl-like shape, creating a sort of natural amphitheater where the voice of one or a few people could be heard by many, many others.

I found it interesting that the Har Eival altar, like the holy places in Shiloh and Jerusalem, is on a hill which is not the highest hill in the area. It is as if the intention is always to be above and respected by the people, but not above and transcending nature as Canaanite altars were. The theological implications are interesting.

From the site we could see Arab villages which are associated in Israelite pottery inscriptions or village names with the ancient families of Tirtzah, Hoglah, and (IIRC) Machlah. These families were evidently descended from three of the five daughters of Tzelafchad as discussed in Sefer Bamidbar, and their inherited territory was around and slightly north of Shechem. (The remaining two daughters presumably inherited land nearby, but no record of it has yet been found.)

UPDATE: Palestinians have a history of quite methodically destroying Jewish historical and religious sites, including the palaces and synagogue in Jericho, Kever Yosef in Shechem, the ruins under the Temple Mount, and so on. So it is a matter of concern that a site as important as this one is totally exposed in such an unfriendly neighborhood. Luckily, the Palestinians don't seem to know what the site consists of. Looking on Wikimapia, the only Arabic commentator left a note which I translated online to mean "Usurper army was expelled from the mountains and these are no longer settlement". So this guy, at least, thinks the altar was destroyed in the disengagement!

4. On the way back from Har Eival (the tour let us off at the remote settlement of Shavei Shomron), I waited an hour in vain for a hitchhike to anywhere outside the West Bank and Jerusalem, before a bus finally arrived. The thought passed through my mind that "Gush Katif was destroyed because not enough people from there drove to Haifa." It sounds ridiculous, but on reflection I found it to be quite true. For social and religious reasons, the people in settlements associate with people in other settlements, in Jerusalem, and to a lesser extent in parts of the Tel Aviv area. They have little association with the large mass of secular people in the rest of Israel (and the religious people living elsewhere in Israel seem to me to be quite different in outlook from the settlers). Thus secular people rarely meet settlers. Each group gets to thinking that it represents all of Israel and thus deserves to get everything it wants politically. When these mutual delusions are translated into policy debate, the results are ugly and traumatic events like the disengagement result.

Eshet Chayil

I had to give a dvar torah at a "shabbat kalah" meal. (Yes, really. My excuse is that I was a witness on the couple's prenuptial agreement, as was the other male invited.) Here is the non-personal part of the dvar torah, based on my notes from before shabbat (it took a long time to think of something appropriate to say)

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

There's a phrase that we use to describe a woman with great moral character, which is "eshet chayil". It's not a new phrase; in fact it's been in use for more than 3000 years by now.

The first recorded usage is in Megillat Ruth, where Boaz uses the phrase to refer to Ruth. When she meets him at night in the field, he says to her:

כי יודע כל שער עמי, כי אשת חיל את

You might wonder what the male equivalent of "eshet chayil" is. If you replace "isha" with "gever" you get "gever chayil", which is a phrase that nobody ever uses. But a very similar phrase is used to describe Boaz:

ולנעמי מידע (מודע) לאישה, איש גבור חיל ממשפחת אלימלך, ושמו בעז.

You might have thought that "gibor chayil" means being a great military hero, but that's probably not the case here. First of all, an "eshet chayil" is not fighting any wars, so why should a "gibor chayil" be any different? Chayil in Megillat Ruth does not seem to military stuff. Second of all, we never see Boaz fighting a war, but we do see him doing all sorts of nice and moral things, just like you would expect from an "eshet chayil". And it would be totally irrelevant to the plotline to say that Boaz is a soldier, but it's very relevant to say he's a moral person. For these reasons I think "gibor chayil" has a primarily non-military meaning, at least in this book.

So in summary, there is one place in the Megillah where Ruth is called an "eshet chayil", one place where Boaz is called a "gibor chayil". It is no accident that the "eshet chayil" ends up marrying the "gibor chayil".

(And hear I descended into mushiness...)

If you are unmarried and know me, please forget what you just read, I may someday want to use this at or around your wedding. :)

Thoughts on Eichah

This post does not aim to be as comprehensive as last year's post on Eichah.

The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Hashem, was taken in their pits; of whom we said: "Under his shadow we shall live among the nations." (4:20)

This verse refers to a king of Judah, Yoshiyahu or Tzidkiyahu, who was captured and perhaps killed by enemy armies.

I wish I could tell you what "breath of our nostrils" means, but I have no idea and have no Mikraot Gedolot handy. Perhaps it refers to breathing quickly, which you might do when you were excited, which you might be when seeing your king. That explanation could be totally wrong though.

The end of the verse, while also confusing, can be more confidently explained. In Sefer Bamidbar, when the spies came back and the people were disheartened by their report, Yehoshua and Kalev tried to encourage them with the following line:

"Only rebel not against Hashem, and do not fear the people of the land; for they are our bread. Their shadow is removed from above them, and Hashem is with us; do not be afraid." (Bamidbar 14:9)

That line contains two memorable turns of phrase. The "bread" reference, of course, means that "we're going to totally eat them up in battle", to use a more contemporary expression. The "shadow" reference refers to protection. You are only in a shadow when standing behind something which is bigger than you, and which implicitly protects you. If the Canaanites' "shadow" has left them, it means that (with God's help) there is no longer anything to protect them from the invading Israelites.

Similarly, the "shadow" in Eichah (it's the same Hebrew word too) refers to military protection.

From the books of Shoftim and Shmuel, we see that the people did not ask for a king until their military situation got so desperate under the Judges that they wanted a permanent leader, always ready to go to war on their behalf. As they say: "Let there be a king over us; that we too may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." (Shmuel Alef 8:19-20)

That line from Shmuel is very similar to our line, "Under his shadow we shall live among the nations." Both lines indicate that the king's primary task is to provide military protection, and that being "like the nations" (if perhaps only in the sense of having a standing army) is an important goal.

About 500 years after the monarchy was first instituted by Shmuel, it was effectively abolished by the capture of the Judean king. The political situation instantly reverted to the basically defenceless state the Jews had been in before the first king was appointed. Very soon afterwards, they were completely conquered and exiled from the land.

That is why the fate of a certain single person merits explicit discussion in Eichah, while the rest of the book is entirely anonymous and general in its descriptions.

The elders have ceased from the gate, the young men from their music.
The joy of our heart is ceased; our dance is turned into mourning.
The crown is fallen from our head; woe to us, for we have sinned.
For this our heart is faint, for these things our eyes are dim:
For the mountain of Zion, which is desolate; foxes walk upon it.
You, Hashem, are enthroned forever; your throne is from generation to generation.
Why shall You forget us forever, and abandon us indefinitely?
Return us to You, Hashem, and we shall return; renew our days as of old. (5:14-21)

After a long list of the physical afflictions the people is undergoing, there is a mention of the desolation of the destroyed Temple, before the request for a renewed relationship with God.

One possible reason the Temple is mentioned here is to positively represent the people's state of mind: While they are undergoing these horrible afflictions, they are primarily upset not by the physical pain, but by the fact that the Temple is destroyed. They were punished for not caring enough about spiritual matters, but the shock of the destruction has made them reevaluate their priorities.

Another possibility is hinted at by the verse that follows: "You, Hashem, are enthroned forever; your throne is from generation to generation." Right before mentioning God's eternal existence, Eichah mentions that the Temple is not in fact eternal.

Before the destruction of the First Temple, one of the major problems was people saying that God would never let the Temple get destroyed, so people in Jerusalem were safe no matter how evil their deeds. (See for example Yirmiyahu 7.) Now, by admitting that the Temple is destroyed, and yet hoping for a relationship with God outside the Temple, reparation is made for the mistaken attitudes that prevailed before the destruction.

GPS in Israel

According to the driver of the bus I was on earlier tonight: In every Egged bus there is a GPS device in constant communication with Egged headquarters. The people in headquarters have a computer system where they can see a map, with a little dots on it indicating the current positions of each bus in the city.

I wonder how long until this system is publicly accessible - let's say, until you can get a SMS automatically delivered to you once the bus comes within 500 meters of your bus stop, so you know to walk to the stop.

Speaking of GPS, a couple months ago I was in a taxi where the driver was totally Ignorant of any of the streets in town, but he had a GPS thing to direct him to my destination. Only problem was, for some reason he didn't use the GPS (perhaps he didn't know how to). So when he started going in the wrong direction, I had to give him directions myself (not so easy, as we were going to a friend of mine, at an address I'd never been to before, in a city I don't live in). Ridiculous!

Thoughts on Masei

They traveled from Kadesh, and encamped at Hor Hahar, at the edge of the land of Edom.
Aharon the priest went up to Hor Hahar on God'scommand, and died there, in the 40th year of the children of Israel's exit from the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first of the month. Aharon was 123 years old when he died on Hor Hahar. (33:37-9)

Why does the list of Israelite journeys in the desert digress to discuss Aharon's death in such detail?

I think it is because the journey's are originally introduced as being "beyad Moshe veAharon" (33:1). Now that Aharon is dead, they are no longer traveling "under his hand".

OK then - why were the journeys described as being under Aharon's hand in the first place? It makes sense that they are under Moshe's hand, but of what relevance is Aharon?

Perhaps this is related to the role of the Mishkan in their travels. When the cloud rested on the Mishkan they would encamp, when the cloud lifted they would travel, and when they traveled the Mishkan would have a defined place between their camps. Thus the Mishkan dictated their travels, and Aharon, who was in charge of the Mishkan, was (at least symbolically) in control just as much as Moshe was.

Borders

There are two kinds of political borders in the world: "Switzerland" borders and "Colorado" borders. The former kind is irregular and complex, and results from centuries of wars and political maneuvers which lead to innumerable, incremental border adjustments. The latter kind is simple to draw and remember, and occurs when new political powers come and wipe out the previous political order and need to make new borders from scratch.

The borders between Israel and its neighbors are generally in the second category, as they result from the imperial struggles of England, France, and the Ottoman Empire in the early 1900s. Thus the Israel-Sinai border is a straight line (with a few kinks which actually result from errors made drawing that line), and the Israel-Jordan and pre-1967 Israel-Syria borders essentially follow the Jordan River and Arava.

The Israel-Lebanon border is different. It is surprisingly complex and seemingly arbitrary, given that it was the result of a simple partition treaty between Britain and France. What possessed the map-drawers to add so many bends and twists?

I think the answer can be found by looking carefully at a topographic map, and remembering several considerations which must have guided the mapmakers. In particular, there seem to be two critical locations at opposite ends of the border which determined the rest of the border: Rosh Hanikra and Dan.

Dan, and the whole "finger of Galilee" that it's at the end of, are important as a water source. It's known that the British wanted the Kineret's water sources, as much as possible, to be on their side of the border because without this water it would be hard for the state to be viable. The springs at Dan, and the rivers which descend towards Dan from the Hermon, form a large fraction of the Kineret's water sources. So the British made sure the border went just north of Dan.

Rosh Hanikra seems to be arbitrarily chosen as a boundary between the French and British. But it's such a notable geographic landmark that it's easy to see why they picked it, and not some other place nearby.

What about the long and squiggly border in between Dan and Rosh Hanikra? What I recently noticed, and which impelled me to write this post, is that the border very nearly follows the watershed between Israeli and Lebanese. rivers. Basically, for each piece of land, imagine where rain that fell there would eventually flow. If it would flow into the Mediterranean Sea at a point north of Rosh Hanikra, then the land is Lebanese. If it would flow into the Mediterranean south of Rosh Hanikra, or else would flow into the Kineret, the land is Israeli.

Now, if you actually try that, you'll find that the division line is close to the current border, but even squigglier. And so I believe that after basing the border on the watershed, the French and British went out and smoothed it out a bit just to make it a little more reasonable. The largest consequence was north of Metula, where the Iyun river (which flows in to the Jordan) became part of Lebanon. But there are other such adjustments all along the watershed line, in favor of both Israel and Lebanon.

But look at the sharp bend in the border just north of Tzefat, and look at the pattern of wadis in the same area, and the basic correspondence between border and geography will become perfectly clear.

Demography Shmography

According to the CIA, the Vatican has a population of 824 people and a growth rate of 0.003% per year.

That means that, in the last year, the Vatican's population increased by 0.025 people.

What the !@#$%^???

Sleep

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Of course, I personally prefer the 8 hours variety of nap, taken at night.

And I prefer a professor's voice to the static noise on this recording. :)

Good Riddance

Finally, after all this time, we can look forward to an honest, dignified, safe and peaceful future in Israel.

Outside my window I hear fireworks, and I'm having fun imagining it's related.

ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם שהחיינו וקיימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה.

Chess

"As the game [acedrex, or chess] changed and moved from India through Persia and into Europe the Indian elephants became bishops. Eventually the counselor would become a queen, and her power increased tremendously. The chariots became castles, which explains why the modern chess castle can travel so rapidly across the board."

That's pretty cool. But I don't understand how an elephant could travel on diagonals. You'd think it would keep banging into other pieces all the time...

Sefer hamitzvot

The Rambam, in the introduction to his Sefer Hamitzvot, gives 14 criteria by which he arrives at a count of 613 mitzvot. Here is a summary of them, one by one.

1. Don't count mitzvot derabanan.

2. Don't count mitzvot derivable from the "13 exegetical methods" (Even if they are deoraita, they are "anafim" not "shorashim".) Mitzvot are not counted unless they are explicit in the Torah's pshat, or else explicitly mentioned as oral tradition from Sinai.

3. Don't count mitzvot which are not "ledorot".

4. Don't count mitzvot which encompass the entire torah (i.e. "kedoshim tihyu").

5. The reason for a mitzvah is not a separate mitzvah (i.e. arayot followed by "lo tachti et haaretz").

6. A mitzvah with positive and negative components - they are counted separately.

7. All the details of a mitzvah, despite appearing in different verses, count as one overall mitzvah.

8. A statement that a mitzvah does not apply in some circumstance is not a separate, negative mitzvah.

9. Mitzvot which are repeated count only once. "Do not do X or Y" - X and Y together are 1 mitzvah.

10. Specified preparatory activities to a mitzvah (i.e. "kach lecha samim") are not separate mitzvot.

11. Different mitzvah activities with a single "purpose" (i.e. blue/white tzizit or lulav/etrog) are not separate mitzvot.

12. A general command (i.e. "ve'asu li mikdash", "torah haolah") is one mitzvah, though it is followed by many commands regarding the details. (However details which apply to more than one mitzvah, such as "al kol korbanecha takriv melach", are separate mitzvot.)

13. A mitzvah which applies unchanged on multiple days is one mitzvah (i.e. musaf).

14. Each type of judicial punishment is one mitzvah, though it's used for many different crimes.

Tze Ulemad

Rava said: If a person sees suffering coming upon him, he should examine his actions. If he examined and did not find [any defects], he should attribute [the suffering] to neglect of Torah study. (Brachot 5a)

How can a person possibly examine his actions and not find anything that needs fixing? As Kohelet 7:20 says, "there is no person on earth who does good and never sins"!

And furthermore, what's so important about Torah study that even a perfectly behaving person can be punished for not doing enough of it?

I could try answering the second question with my previous post, but I would prefer to try answering both questions at once.

If you examine your actions and find nothing wrong, it is probably not the case that you are a perfect person. It's more likely that you did something wrong, but don't realize it. Luckily enough, this situation can be remedied by learning what you did wrong. If you don't know basic halacha, you can study it. If you are too spiritually lax or inconsiderate of other people, you can study mussar, philosophy or Tanach to impress upon yourself the proper attitude by which to go about your life. Most of us could use a little of both types of study.

But if you had the opportunity to learn, and passed it up, and ended up violating laws you didn't know about or appreciate, then it is really your fault for choosing not to learn in the first place. Such an person, one who does things wrong but thinks he does nothing wrong because of his ignorance, really should blame the punishment he gets on neglect of Torah study.

Acheinu Kol Beit Yisrael

An interesting perspective on prayer and Divine justice. Read the whole thing, but the meat of it is in the last paragraph.

Thoughts on Matot

The passage on women's vows appears at first glance to be very repetitive. But if we look carefully, we see that it is in fact very carefully structured. It covers four distinct cases, one after the other, describing each of the possible outcomes in each case.

This is best shown by putting the chapter into outline form, with the relevant verse numbers indicated in brackets.

Introduction [2]
Men's vows stand [3]
Women's vows:
 1. Before marriage (in father's house) [4]
  Allowed [5]
  Nullified [6]
 2. Status during marriage of vows made before marriage* [7]
  Allowed [8]
  Nullified [9]
 3. If divorced or widowed - vows stand [10]
 4. Vows made during marriage [11]
  Allowed [12]
  Nullified [13]
 Husband has power to allow or nullify [14]
  To allow [15]
  To nullify [16]
Summary [17]

* Or else, this could be talking about vows made after engagement but before marriage.

Looking at the chapter this way, it is clear that the only possibly repetitive section is verses 14-16. It is not absolutely clear to me what the function of this section is, but here are two suggestions.

Perhaps, since the "normal" case of a woman's vows being nullified is by her husband (girls generally got married shortly after they became mature enough to make a vow), this section is just a summary of the laws of vows using the most common case.

Alternatively, the description of the vows in this section is more detailed than in the other sections - כל נדר וכל שבעת אסר לענת נפש. So while the previous sections teach how and when vows are nullified, this section teaches which vows are nullified.

Kabbalah and modern Jewish philosophy

The following article, by R' Yosef Avivi, appeared in Gush's "Daf Kesher" for parshat Hukat this year. I found it interesting, and here is a quick and dirty translation.

====
Jewish philosophy in recent generations has been based on and formulated through Kabbalah. The Ari's Kabbalah is the source and fountainhead from which the philosophies of Ramchal, Baal Shem Tov, and R' Kook flow. These three, though they differ in location and time, are close to each other in logic and approach. All three interpreted the Ari's Kabbalah, and their interpretation forms the interpretation of their thought and the originality of their approach. Their common base - the Ari's Kabbalah - is hidden and impenetrable to the point that any commentary on it is a new, independently standing creation. The Ari's Kabbalah was formulated according to "hidden" wisdom - sefirot and partzufim, emanation and regression - and its interpretation consists of its formulation according to revealed wisdom - ideas and logic, principles and means of thought. The common source of the three interpretations reveals their commonalities and differences, what each thinker innovated and how he interpreted the Ari's Kabbalah.

In a few lines I wish to describe the innovation of each thinker. I will not detail the basics of his thought, rather, I will try to extract what each of the three innovated - Ramchal, Baal Shem Tov, and R' Kook.

The Ari taught that the sefirot were emanated as light and vessels. The vessels were broken and the light fell and dissipated; afterwards the sefirot were repaired and the light appeared in new repaired vessels, but there are still broken vessels with sparks of holiness in them, in need of repair. Israel's labor in Torah, prayer and mitzvah performance forms the repair of the vessels and elevation of the sparks, until complete repair of all the worlds is reached. Later scholars came and explained what is meant by repaired sefirot and by broken vessels with sparks of holiness in them; what has been repaired and what needs repair. The description of these two realities is the essential innovation of each of the later kabbalists in their interpretation of the Ari's teaching.

Ramchal explained that the sefirot are details of God's governance of the world. Everything that is described about sefirot in all their varieties is a prophetic vision in which God shows Israel how He governs them and the world. The various sefirot are His various attributes. Ramchal introduced the idea that the light and vessels are two forms of Divine conduct: the light - the conduct by which God's unity is revealed, through which God's holiness and goodness are revealed and it is revealed that there is none other than Him. And the vessels - conduct by which human free will, reward, and punishment are revealed. Humanity's task - revealing the light which is the conduct attesting to Divine unity, and repairing the vessels which are the conduct attesting to reward and punishment. These are accomplished through keeping the Torah and commandments, and through hope and expectation for the appearance of Divine unity.

To summarize the Ramchal's innovation: The border of the world of emanation is what needs repair - i.e. the complete appearance of unbounded light in it.

The Baal Shem Tov saw the sefirot in the human soul, and interpreted Heavenly conduct according to the behavior of the human soul. The Baal Shem Tov laid the foundation for this perspective, and the Baal Hatanya built the entire structure. Intellect and character traits, enthusiasm and vitality are the activities of the sefirot and the changes in their status. Thus, on a high level, "from my flesh I shall see God". There are two souls in a person - Divine and animalistic; and thus a person's task is to cling to God with both his souls.

To summarize the innovation of Chassidut: The animalistic soul and a person's secular activity need repair - i.e. the manifestation of holiness in them through clinging to God.

R' Kook saw the sefirot in the world of trends, theories, and ideas about life and their application. There are two worlds: the holy world begins as a world of Divine trends and aspirations, free without constriction or boundaries, and ends with their contraction and bounding to human dimensions, while remaining in the freedom, Godliness and absoluteness. The secular world begins as a world of human trends and aspirations, natural and bounded, and ends with their self-destruction [?] and and mutual struggle until the evil [?] is apparent in them. Therefore humanity's task is to raise the secular world to the holy and to make fully revealed the holy light.

To summarize R' Kook's innovation: All natural-human ideas and ideals and the ways of life that follow from them - are secular, and need repair, i.e. the appearance of the Godly ideals and the holy world that is in them.

We see that what the Ari said about the world of emanations, of degradation and repair, is interpreted by the Ramchal as behavioral patterns in Divine rule, by Chassidut as behavioral patterns in the human soul, and by R' Kook as patterns of life customs.

My university needs more girls

Their handwriting is better and it would make it much easier to grade stacks of homework problems. :)

Anti-semitism

The next time somebody says "Arabs can't be anti-Semites because they are Semites themselves", try responding "Naked pictures aren't pornography unless the person pictured is a prostitute, because the word 'porne' is Greek for prostitute".

In honor of Parshat Balak

A quote from an online chat room...

*** Now talking in #christian
[Word_of_God] Welcome Abstruse to #christian I am a Bible Bot. For more info type: /msg Word_of_God !info
[Abstruse] !kjv numbers 22:21
[Word_of_God] Numbers 22:21 -- And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. - (KJV)
*** SageRider sets mode: +b *!*@c211-30-208-111.rivrw3.nsw.optusnet.com.au
*** Word_of_God was kicked from #christian by SageRider (Please dont Swear)
[Abstruse] I know I'm never going to be able to come back in this channel again after this, but damn was it worth it to see that...

Thoughts on Korach

ה,טז כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמיים, סופה להתקיים; ושאינה לשם שמיים, אין סופה להתקיים. איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמיים, זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי; ושאינה לשם שמיים, זו מחלוקת קורח ועדתו.

This line of Pirkei Avot differentiates between worthy disagreements, such as that of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, and unworthy disagreements such as that of Korach and his party.

It seems that we can further refine this distinction by looking carefully at Korach and his party. Essentially, their rebellion had two distinct foci: Korach, who wanted to be a priest; and Datan and Aviram, who wanted a political leadership that would not strand them in the desert for 40 years. Korach's goal was to more meaningfully (so he thought) serve God, while Datan and Aviram's complaint was purely material. It seems that Korach's basic motivation was praiseworthy. In contrast, there was no such redeeming quality to Datan and Aviram's complaint.

It appears that this moral difference is reflected in the punishment received by each party. Datan and Aviram were swallowed up by the earth (see verse 16:27), their bodies and memory erased from sight forever. Korach, in contrast, was burned to death while offering incense with 250 of his followers (see 17:5, also see 16:27 which makes a point of not mentioning Korach). The incense shovels which Korach and the others used were beaten into a covering for the altar. This memorial to their actions has a negative purpose, as a warning. But at the same time it functions as an integral and positive part of the Mishkan, which makes me think the lesson to be derived from it is not entirely negative.

Both halves of the rebellion were unjustified in that they involved knowingly disobeying Divine commands. Thus, Pirkei Avot is justified in lumping them together as a single unjustified argument destined not to endure. But while Datan and Aviram had entirely base motivations, Korach's motivation was praiseworthy in its source. Thus while the legacy of Datan and Aviram vanishes completely, Korach's legacy does not, and a memorial to his motivations is preserved forever in the Mishkan.

Olmert, etc.

1. The hopeful part

One must search hard to find a credible motivation for Ehud Olmert's recent opening of negotiations with Syria. Even UN offficials in the region condemned Olmert for granting legitimacy to a pariah regime which destabilizes its neighbors, without receiving anything in return. Those of us who genuinely care about Israel's security, and fully understand the complex relations between Israel, Syria and Lebanon, find the decision that much harder to understand.

The only explanation I can think of that makes any sense, whatsoever, relates to the Iranian nuclear situation. If Israel in fact launches an attack on Iran, we can look forward to retaliation from not only Iran but also all of its allies. This includes Hizbullah and Hamas, but the capabilities of both groups are limited. Much more worrying is Syria, which has much larger arsenals including biological and chemical weapons, and which is allied to Iran. Perhaps the negotiations with Syria are intended just to prevent Syrian involvement in the inevitable attack and counter-attack. Syria keeps telling everyone it is not breaking its alliance with Iran. But when the moment of truth comes and it has to decide between its connections with Iran and Israel, hopefully it will be just confused enough to want to sit things out.

And when the negotiations inevitably fail due to "irreconcilable differences", we can console ourselves by saying that they had no chance in the first place. And in the mean time, hopefully the Iranian issue can be taken care of with a minimum of side effects.

2. The less hopeful part

The one thing that has comforted me and many other Israelis over the past few years of corrupt, defeatist, and rather anti-democratic governance in Israel was the certainty that if and when elections were next held, public disgust with the government would ensure that Netanyahu and the Likud were elected.

That certainty is equally certain now, but the sanity which we hoped would return to Israeli politics with the next elections seems more remote than ever. For it now appears that before Netanyahu is elected in Israel, Barack Obama will be elected president of the US.

While I have high expectations for Obama's domestic policy, his likely foreign policy direction is profoundly troubling. Despite the necessary platitudes he delivers, it appears that since his college days he has consistently held to a Marxist woldview in which the US and the West are oppressing the world's "rogue states", and if we just let the rogue states run things instead of us, everything would be a lot better and the world would be a lot fairer.

Given that:

• Israel is seen as one of the worst such oppressors,
• the "rogue states" and organizations include most of Israel's enemies,
• "left-wing" leaders in the US in the past, in Europe now, and among Obama's closest advisors argue for forcing Israel to accept political arrangements its government may not want,

over the next 4 years, we can expect to see Israel coerced into continuing the same destructive policies it has willingly followed for most of the previous 4.

And by then - who knows how many thousand Israelis will have been killed, how many hundred thousand will have been expelled from their homes, how many million will be bombarded on a regular basis by rockets, and how much lower Israel's international standing will be as a direct result of all these sacrifices for "peace".