13 Middot

(Credit for this mostly to R' Menachem Leibtag)
The core of the slichot (and Yom Kippur) prayers is the 13 Middot or Attributes of God. In selichot, they are recited over and over with various songs and poems in between. At first glance they seem like a kind of magic spell which instantly gets you forgiveness for your sins. But that would be very strange and, I think, foreign to Judaism. What, in fact, do they mean? Why are they recited?

If you look at the Ten Commandments, you will notice something interesting. They include not just commandments and reasons for the commandments, but also descriptions of God. For example, God is "zealous" ("kana", 2nd commandment) and unforgiving to sinners (3rd commandment).

Historically, the Ten Commandments were written on tablets and given to Moshe. But after the sin of the golden calf, Moshe broke the tablets. This symbolized a more important fact: that the covenant signified by the 10 Commandments was now nullified. It had to be, because a zealous and unforgiving God could not coexist with a sinning Jewish people. When Moshe went back to God, there were two options. Either the Jewish people would be annihilated. Or else, God's attributes would have to change.

If you make a list of all the attributes of God in the second and third Commandments, and compare them to the 13 Middot (though the order is different), you will find that the "zealous" attributes in the Commandments have "non-zealous" parallels among the Middot. For example, "el kana" is replaced by "el rachum vechanum", "lo yenakeh" by "venakeh", "poked avon" by "nose avon", and so on. After the sin of the golden calf, God made a new covenant with the Jewish people. The actual commandments were unchanged (and so did not have to be repeated). But God's manner of relating to the Jewish people did change. Absolute justice was replaced by a mixture of justice and forgiveness. The changes were recorded for posterity in the 13 Middot, which represent a new set of tablets and a new covenant.

Obviously, God cannot forgive every sin, all the time, nor would that be desirable. After the 13 Middot, the Torah still sometimes mentions God's zeal, jealousy, and unforgiving justice. Sometimes God will be merciful, and sometimes not. Whenever we mention the 13 Middot in prayers, we are alluding to both covenants. We are praying that God act according to the later, merciful covenant, though the earlier model is still an option as well.

"Zechor lanu hayom brit shlosh esreh" - "Remember for us, today, the covenant of the 13 attributes"

Family and Aliyah

Interesting.

Esther and Batsheva II

Apologies to those who already saw this piece in English some months back. Of course nobody is going to read it in Hebrew. That's not a problem, though, as I translated it just to test my Hebrew writing skills. My posting it was just the excuse and motivation for translating it.

מגילת אסתר(ב,ז) מספר שאחרי שמתו ההורים של אסתר, מרדכי לקח את אסתר "לבת". לפי המדרש הידוע, אסתר באמת הפך להיות האישה של מרדכי ולא בת החורגת שלו. אני רוצה לחקור את הרקע ואת המסר של מדרש זו.

יש (לפחות) עוד מקום אחד בתנ"ך ששם מתייחסים לאשת מישהו כמו לבתו - בסיפור דוד ובת-שבע (שמואל ב יב). כשהנביא נתן רוצה להוכיח את דוד על חטאו עם בת-שבע, נתן מספר משל של איש רש בעל רק "כבשה אחת קטנה" שהוא מגדל באהבה, עד ש"ותהי לו לבת". לצערו, איש עשיר אחד בעל הרבה עדרי צאן גונב את הכבשה היחידה של הרש, ושוחט ואוכל אותה. דוד, כששומע את הסיפור, כועס ודורש את עונש העשיר. נתן משיב לו שהוא עתה הרשיע את עצמו. במשל, דוד מייצג את העשיר, אוריה את הרש, ואישתו בת-שבע את הכבשה שהרש חישב לה כ"בת".

כשהמדרש אומר שה"בת" של מרדכי באמת היתה "אישתו", אני חושב שהוא רומז לבת-שבע, ה"אישה" האחרת שנקראה "בת". יש עוד הקבלות ברורות בין הסיפורים. מרדכי עומד במקום אוריה. יותר חשוב, המלך אחשורוש עומד במקום המלך דוד. כמו שדוד כפה קשר של ניאוף בינו לבין בת-שבע, אחשורוש כפה נישואי תערובת עם אסתר.

מה שמעניין זה שהקשר של ניאוף בין דוד לבת-שבע הפך יותר מאוחר להיות לגיטימי לגמרי. אחרי מות אוריה, דוד לקח אותה כאישה חוקית. בנם היה שלמה, שהביא את ישראל לשיא עוצמתו, שבנה את בית המקדש הראשון, ושבו נמשך שלשלת המלכות בית של בית דוד. המדרש שלנו מציע שמשהו דומה קרה בין אחשורוש לאסתר. למרות שהתחלת זיווגם היתה בחטא, בסוף היא גרמה להצלת היהודים מגזרת המוות של המן. אפשר עוד לומר שההקבלה הזאת היא מקור למדרש אחרת, האומרת שהמלך דריוש - שנתן רשות ליהודים לבנות את בית המקדש השני - היה בנם של אחשורוש ואסתר.

לפי מדרשנו, המסר המשותפת של אסתר ובת-שבע זה שכשאתה נמצא במצב בעייתי מבחינה רוחנית, אסור לך להתייאש או להתפרש מהמצב. אלא, עליך - כמו שעשו דוד ואסתר - להתענות, לוודות את החטא, ולעבוד עם כל הכח שיש לך כדי להציל את המצב ולהפוך את הגזרה. אז, חטאי מוות והשמדה העומדת להתרחש יכולים להיהפך לגאולת העם ולבניית בית המקדש. אם הכוונה והמאמץ הם נכונים, מתוך המשבר הגדול יכולה לבוא הגאולה השלמה.

Not Just Any Tree

"The righteous person will flourish like the date-palm; he will grow like a cedar in Lebanon,
Planted in the house of Hashem, in the courts of our God they flourish." (Tehilim 92:13-14)

The basic meaning of these lines is obvious. The righteous person will not only survive, but will become as strong, resilient, and respected as the impressive palm and cedar trees. But what does the second verse add? We know that righteous people will succeed, because they are close to God and do what God wants. Why the repeated, specific mention of the Temple?

There is one other context in which Tanach mentions trees planted in the Temple. This is the Asherah - the idolatrous tree which was planted at holy sites and perhaps served as an object of worship alongside an idol. (The Torah, of course, condemns the practice.) The double mention of the Temple, in connection with the trees, strongly indicates that the righteous person is being compared to an Asherah.

This quite daring metaphor sheds light on how Judaism differs from other religions. The righteous person, standing in place of the Asherah, symbolizes what is important to Judaism. The Jewish people is a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation". Each person, going about his or her daily routine, has the opportunity to sanctify his surroundings and personal relationships. Such a person thus merits the closeness to God that other religions associate with idols, with mystical experiences, and with sites of revelation.

City on a Hill

There were once two brothers, both farmers, who lived on opposite sides of a hill in central Israel. One was married and had a house full of kids. The other lived by himself.

One night, the first brother thought to himself, "I have a whole family to support, while my brother, who produces the same amount of crops that I do, keeps it all for himself. It would only be fair for me to take some of his crops, to even things out." He decided to steal some of his brother's crops.

Simultaneously, the second brother was thinking. "I envy my brother who has a whole family to support him. What if I get hurt or sick and there is nobody to help out? I need to build up a surplus, just in case." He too decided to steal from his brother.

That night, the brothers set out to steal from one another. But the next morning, they were amazed to find that they had no more wheat in their storehouses than they had the day before. This scene repeated itself several days in a row.

One night the two brothers bumped into each other, carrying bundles of wheat. They each realized what the other had been doing, and started beating each other up.

Many years later, on that exact spot, it was decided to build the Knesset.

Pomegranate

I counted the seeds of a pomegranate (and then ate them). There were 509. (roughly)

It was a smallish pomegranate too. A big one might indeed have close to 613 seeds.

Deterrence

I try to avoid making political posts, but I couldn't get out of the way of this one.

One main Israeli goal of the recent Lebanon war was to restore its deterrent power. It has been claimed that since many Arabs think that Hizbullah won, thus Israel's deterrence has actually decreased. But of course, Israel does not need to deter the average Arab - the Syrian goat-herder or the taxi driver from Qatar - because no matter how much they hate Israel, they can't do much to effect it. Only governments, militaries, and major terrorist groups need to be deterred from fighting. Specifically, without the support of either Lebanon or Iran, Hizbullah could not continue its activities. It is not a country or people after all, it is just a militia which needs funding and territory from which to operate.

I'm sure few Lebanese, no matter how much they hate Israel, would choose to see the destruction of the last month repeated. Iran, on the other hand, has lost nothing over the past month. And Iran has more influence over Hizbullah than the Lebanese government or society do. Lebanon has probably been deterred, but some other method will have to be found to deter Iran.

Right now Israel is faced with Hizbullah and Hamas on its borders, and the US is fighting an insurgency in Iraq. The common denominator in these destabilizing situations (possibly including Hamas) is Iranian funding. Take away the funding, and the terrorists will not be able to afford bombs or rockets or salaries. And Iran's wealth would seem to be easily attackable.

Since Ahmadinejad came to power and began making blood-curdling threats, nearly all foreign investment has left Iran in a hurry. The economy as a whole has been pretty weak since the Islamic Revolution, but this was the last straw. Apparently the Tehran stock market has all but ceased to exist. Of course, Iran survives because of oil revenue. But take away the oil, and Iran would not be able to fund Hizbullah or Hamas. In fact, the Islamic government - not especially popular in its own country - might even fall altogether. And oil is easily targeted.

If the US or Israel ends up at war with Iran, their first strike should eliminate every source of oil in Iran. This would cripple the country very quickly. Instead of being like Saudi Arabia's, Iran's economy would become more like Afghanistan's. Oil infrastructure could be rebuilt afterwards if the US allowed it, but probably not before then - no funds would be available, and who would be willing to invest? Of course, such a strike would only be possible as part of a major war; if undertaken in peacetime it would almost certainly cause war to begin.

Assuming we do not immediately want to wage war with Iran, there is another possibility. Iranian proxies have effectively used asymmetric warfare and terrorism. To fight Iran, the US or Israel must also begin to use "asymmetric warfare and terrorism". Of course, because we are moral, this does not mean targeting civilians. It does mean targeting oil pipelines and refineries. There should be bands of special agents infiltrating Iran and sabotaging oil infrastructure. If Iranian agents do this in Iraq, we can do it in Iran. To the extent Iran sows trouble in its neighbors, we would sow trouble in Iran.

If Iran tries to blame us, we can simply deny it, or else present conclusive evidence that they do the same and much worse. Even better, we could blame the sabotage on Iranian pro-democracy activists or whomever we choose. Thus, violence against a government would provide publicity and legitimacy for the violent party. Terrorists learned the value of this approach long ago, Yasser Arafat being the first and best example. It's time for the civilized world to apply it in one of the rare circumstances in which it is moral.

Though not as overpowering as a full military strike, organized sabotage can severely constrict a country's oil production capacity, as recent Iraqi experience has shown. For oil-dependant Iran this could quickly become a major strategic problem. Hundreds of millions of dollars would no longer be available to terror organizations around the world, or even to fund Iran's own army. As the country's economy went downhill, the leadership would lose domestic popularity and international prestige and might even be overthrown and replaced by a secular government. At the very least, faced with violence on its own soil, Iran could be intimidated into a following more restrained foreign policy. All this, at virtually no risk, except to a handful of special agents carrying out the attacks. (World oil prices would go up significantly, but that is the inevitable cost of any approach which hopes to change Iranian policy.)

Such an approach would not solve the Iranian nuclear problem. Nuclear weapons are so incredible valuable to a rogue state that their development could continue even as much of the country starves to death. That's what happened in North Korea, and Iran's mindset may be no different. Thus, some sort of formal military action would be necessary even as sabotage to oil infrastructure continues. The good news is that the two strategies are complementary. An attack on nuclear facilities would add to the economic pressure caused by sabotage. And damage to oil would make it harder to continue nuclear production, and much harder to rebuild nuclear facilities after an American attack. If the attack manages to destroy only part of the nuclear program, as many experts predict, then the delay in rebuilding would be even more valuable.

In fact, it seems to me that any vaguely sensible policy regarding Iran - sanctions, limited military action, or all-out war in the future, could be made more effective by surreptitious attacks on the country's oil production, even if carried out by a third party.

Right now no Western country seems to have a good idea of how to deal with Iran and its influence in the Middle East. Each of the available options seems to have significant drawbacks, to the point that Europe, for example, seems to have given up on the situation entirely. A program of sabotage, however, could make each of the options into a much more defensible option. Then a coherent and coordinated policy would be much more likely to emerge. The Iranian threat could be dealt with, and the biggest threat to peace in today's world could be neutralized.

Dear Abby Shebashamayim

Want proof that Shir Hashirim really is a metaphor for the God/Jewish people relationship, not "just" a love song? Here's what convinced me. (credit to R' Yoni Grossman)

השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלם, בצבאות, או באילות השדה, אם-תעירו ואם-תעוררו את האהבה עד שתחפץ
(verse 2:7)
Crudely translated: "I make you swear, daughters of Jerusalem, by gazelles, or by the deer of the field, lest you awaken or arouse the love until is desired."

Now, people usually swear by God, their life, their soul, their honor, Satan - there is a short list of entities whom it is worth swearing to. Needless to say, gazelles and the deer of the field are not on that list. The phrasing is thus utterly incomprehensible...

Until you notice the pun. Gazelles - "tzevaot" - sounds a lot like "Hashem Tzevaot". And deer of the field - "ayalot hasadeh" - sounds a lot like "El Shadai". The verse is none other than a disguised oath in God's name, which would make perfect sense, and not in the name of a wild animal. If you didn't get it the first time, the pun is repeated with a different name of God. The choice of gazelles and deer to make the pun is in line with Shir Hashirim's general tendency to use metaphors from nature.

If two references to God in Shir Hashirim are in fact disguised through natural metaphors (and there is no other way to understand the verse), then perhaps there are others. Perhaps the entire book is such a disguised reference?

Kivud Av Ve'em

You might assume that honoring your parents is the kind of natural good deed which should apply equally to Jews and non-Jews, like not committing adultery or establishing a fair court system. But interestingly, there are sources which seem to indicate otherwise. The mitzvah of kivud av ve'em appears in the first half of the Ten Commandments. The normal division of five and five would thus place this command among the mitzvot bein adam lemakom, not those bein adam lechavero. And out of the Ten Commandments, only kivud av ve'em and Shabbat do not find parallels in the seven commandments to non-Jews, which are often identified with natural morality. Why?

Perhaps one important aspect of kivud av ve'em is the preservation the covenant. A main function of the Jewish parent/child relationship would be to transmit religious beliefs and behavior to the next generation, and respecting your parents would facilitate this. Since non-Jews do not need to transmit Judaism to their kids, a lesser degree of parental respect would be required of them.

Certainly one of the major roles of a Jewish parent is to provide the children with religious knowledge and consciousness. In several places (shema, sipur yetziat mitzrayim), we find the parent specifically is commanded to teach Torah to his children. Many Biblical verses testify that this is not an occasional obligation, but rather the parent should be the primary source of religious knowledge. "Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders and they will say to you" (Devarim 32:7). "Hear, my son, the guidance of your father; do not dismiss your mother's Torah" (Mishlei 1:8). God is often referred to as "the God of your fathers" - without revelation to the fathers (parents) and transmission to their offspring we would not have a relationship with God. Religious people (Melachim 2 2:12) and even kings (Melachim 2 6:21) refer to prophets as "father" - this particular term of respect being chosen in reference to the prophet's role as a religious teacher.

Halachically, the verse "Mipnei seivah takum" is interpreted as not just the older generation in general, but specifically Torah scholars, those who transmit the covenant. Many of the laws of honoring your rabbi are similar to those honoring your parents, hinting to a common reason for the respect. And perhaps, the punishment for cursing your parents is death, because it means cursing the source of your religion, and thus is tantamount to blasphemy. In each case, the parent's special position in the commandment comes about in connection to the teaching of Torah and transmission of Judaism.

More speculatively, we might go a step further and suggest that something is fundamentally lacking in parenthood which does not involve the teaching of Judaism. Halachically, the laws of inheritance do not apply to converts to Judaism. Is this because, as usually explained, converts are "born anew" and thus are in some sense not related to their biological families? Or more radically, perhaps the Torah does not fully recognize non-Jewish parenthood at all (since it cannot contribute to transmission of Judaism) and thus non-Jews fundamentally have no inheritance whatsoever? (Admittedly, there are major problems with this hypothesis.)

In any case, even if kivud av ve'em is counted one of the mitzvot bein adam lemakom in the Ten Commandments, it is also the very last one of them, immediately adjoining the mitzvot bein adam lechavero and apparently serving as a bridge between the two groups. Whatever the ritual dimensions of the commandment may be, you may not neglect the natural moral sensibility which should go into your relationship with your parents.

Shiloh

The Mishkan was located in Shiloh for hundreds of years. According to the Gemara (Megillah 9b, Zevachim 112b), Shiloh had almost the status that Jerusalem would later have: the mishkan was given stone walls; pilgrimage from the entire country came to Shiloh; sacrifices in other places were prohibited. But early in the life of Shmuel haNavi, Shiloh was sacked by Philistines and the mishkan destroyed. This was a momentous event, perhaps similar to the destructions of the two Temples. Israel's first request for a king came shortly after the destruction, presumably due to the terrible military weakness which they thought was caused by disunity and lack of a strong leader.

Sefer Shmuel Alef, chapter 4, describes how Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant which had been taken into battle, and how high priest Eli's family was almost wiped out. But for some reason, the destruction of Shiloh is omitted. Later in Tanach (for example Yirmiyahu 26:6) we find passing references to the great destruction which took place. It is from these sources and archaeology that we know that there in fact was a destruction. But there is no mention whatsoever in Shmuel Alef. Chapter 4 spends a lot of time saying how each of Eli's children died, and how contemporary events are reflected in the name of his grandson ("I-chavod"), while omitting the most important of those events. Why?

To answer this, I think we have to look at the overall focus of Sefer Shmuel. I would argue that the book deals not with the history of Israel per se, but particularly with several of Israel's leaders. Most of the book focuses on Shaul and David. We hear how Shaul was selected, his potential as king, and how he then blew his chance and had the royalty taken from him. After that the book focuses solely on David: how he became king and how he was a better, though perhaps flawed, king than Shaul had been. It would not be farfetched to say that the entire purpose of Sefer Shmuel is to justify the choice of David's dynasty and confirm that the Mashiach will eventually come from his offspring, not Shaul's.

In the first few chapters of Sefer Shmuel, Shaul and David and their rivalry have not yet been presented. But a very similar dispute over authority does appear. Eli, the established priest in Shiloh, loses his position as spiritual leader to the charismatic Shmuel. Just as the bulk of the book focuses on justifying David's political authority in place of Shaul, I think these first chapters focus on justifying Shmuel's place as spiritual leader in place of Eli.

Thus, since the purpose of the book is to present personalities and not national history, events which do not directly relate to the personalities can be omitted. It is necessary to tell about the battle in which the Ark is captured, not only because it shows how low Israel has sunk under Eli's tenure, but also because it directly leads the death of Eli and his children. Their death, of course, must be mentioned for the same reasons.

But once we know the fate of Eli's family, there is no need to recount events which took place afterwards. We already know that Eli led the nation to defeat. If the destruction of Shiloh were to be mentioned once the focus of the book had shifted from Eli to Shmuel, we might mistakenly think that Shmuel was responsible for that misfortune. In order to avoid such an impression, the destruction of Shiloh is left out entirely. There is no danger of over-justifying Eli (apparently a nice guy, but a terrible leader), because enough negative events have already been mentioned that we know he was a failure.

Hahaha

http://benchorin.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-rarely-watch-news-on-tv.html

Truly prophetic

Habakuk 1:9 is clearly a statement on the Israeli political situation over the last month. (Or at least until the moment Hizbullah got involved.)

Read it in Hebrew and see.

The real issue

"[Moshe] saw the calf and the dancing..." (Shemot 32:19)

"If Moshe thought it was serious enough to break the tablets, it definitely wasn't because of the golden calf. There must have been mixed dancing too." -R' Medan

Tolerance

There are two kinds of tolerance. You can tolerate because you see value in many things, or at least value the creativity and effort that went into making those things. Or you can tolerate because you see value in nothing.

Unfortunately, too many of the people who talk about tolerance these days are in the latter category.

Cf. R' Kook (Ein Aya Brachot 58, Letter 384)

Sedom

Where were the biblical Sedom and Amora located? South of the Dead Sea? Or north of it? I'll try to present arguments for both sides and to find a resolution. Keep in mind that I know nothing of archaeological finds or other such information which would affect the conclusions. In fact, my only resources are Tanach, a single journal article, and my geographic knowledge. But even within those sources, there's plenty to work with.

Arguments for the North

1. The initial description of Sedom (13:10) indicates very strongly that it is in the north. At this point, Abraham seems to be in the Beit El region. When he has to split up from Lot, Lot scans the horizon, notices Sedom, and decides to go east to there instead of north or south as Abraham suggested. From Beit El, the north end of the Dead Sea is easily visible and is directly to the east. In contrast, the south end of the sea is much further away to the southeast, and probably impossible to see from Beit El. Thus, the northern end seems a much better fit.

2. Even more convincingly, Lot's vision of the area can only correspond to the north end. The phrases "kulo mashkeh" and "kegan Hashem keeretz mitzrayim" bring up images of a lush forested area. Scientifically, it's hard to believe that the Dead Sea area ever looked nice and forested, or that a single rain-down of fire could permanently change the climate. Of course, if you read the verse carefully, you realize that that's not what it says. Egypt would be an uninhabitable desert if not for the river which flows through it. The Dead Sea area is also uninhabitable desert, but it too has a river flowing through it - the Jordan. The north end of the Dead Sea is "keeretz mitzrayim" - a desert with a life-sustaining river flowing through it, and "kulo mashkeh" - entirely irrigated from this river. This fits Lot's description perfectly, while the south end has no river, could never have been fertile, and thus is very hard to imagine as a setting for the story.

3. Not only that, but Lot specifically sets out for "kikar hayarden" - the plain of the Jordan river, which of course is in the north. Later on, "the kikar" is mentioned repeatedly as the site of Sedom, and presumably we are still talking about "kikar hayarden" in the north.

4. Biblical cross-references are ambiguous, with one exception. Breishit 19:22 tells us that Tzoar is a city close to Sedom. Devarim 34:3 seems to indicate that Tzoar is close to Jericho. If so, Tzoar and Sedom would be at the north end.

Arguments for the South

While the modern-day Sedom is south of the Dead Sea and most people assume that the ancient Sedom was there too, I'll ignore this widespread perception and try to focus on textual and geographic clues. Some are more conclusive, some less so.

1. The war between Chedarlaomer and Sedom was preceded (14:5-7) with a military campaign which took Chedarlaomer to a series of places. Several of these - Seir, Paran, Kadesh - seem to be south of the Dead Sea, while others are hard to locate. Nevertheless, if Sedom and its neighbors are north of the Dead Sea, this campaign seems rather out of the way and unrelated. If Sedom and company are to the south, then Sedom was located right in the middle of the campaign. The Sedom war and the previous campaign would then seem to fit together as parts of one larger conflict, which would explain why the Torah bothers to mention the campaign.

2. When Chedarlaomer finally battles Sedom, the king of Sedom is forced to flee, soon encountering the "be'erot chemar". Based on likely meanings of "chemar" and the geography of the Dead Sea area, it seems clear that the king of Sedom ran across and fell into a sinkhole created where the Dead Sea retreated and left behind salty terrain, unstable and prone to collapse. Many such sinkholes are common now at the south end of the Dead Sea, where due to human water use, the whole bottom third of the sea has dried up. Presumably such was also the case in Abraham's time (later on I'll present strong evidence for this). It thus makes sense to say the king of Sedom was fleeing near the southern end of the sea, when he fell into a sinkhole, and was later rescued.

3. Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, and nowadays pillars and whole mountains of salt can be found south of the sea. This seems to indicate that she was "pilloried" in the south; though miracles by definition don't have to conform to nature.

4. The strongest argument for a southern Sedom may come from an article published in the Al Atar periodical, issue 12 (2003). The authors (Yoel Elitzur and Amos Frumkin) used geological data to calculate what the water level of the Dead Sea has been at each point over the last 4000 or so years. It turns out that there have been extensive variations in the water level. Most interestingly, in roughly 1200 B.C.E. the sea was at an unusual high peak of about 385 meters below sea level, while in 1600 B.C.E. the water level was much lower - perhaps 400 meters below, or comparable to the level today. As noted above, in the last century a similar change in water level has caused the bottom third of the sea to dry up entirely. Since the terrain was the same then as now, it's very probably that between 1600 and 1200 the southern third of the sea re-flooded as the water level rose.

This allows us to nicely explain a phrase which otherwise seems redundant and problematic. The battle takes place (14:3) in "the valley of Shidim, which is the salt sea". Why give both names? It seems that in Abraham's time (~1600 B.C.E.), the sea level was low and the area was a dry valley - "the valley of Shidim". By the time the Torah was given (~1200), the area had flooded. What was once a valley now became part of the Dead Sea. After giving the valley's original name, the Torah provides the "modern" name of the now flooded area, "the salt sea", so that readers in Moshe's time would know what is being referred to.

(Bible critics should note that the valley was once again dry from roughly 1000 to 100 B.C.E. :) )

In order for this re-flooding explanation to work, we must assume that the entire valley in question will flood and dry up again based on normal changes in the Dead Sea's level. This phenomenon has, of course, been observed in recent times at the southern area of the Dead Sea. But on the north, east, and west sides of the Dead Sea, the marine slopes are much steeper and only a sliver of land has been exposed as the water level has dropped. It's hard to imagine an entire valley with cities and agriculture fitting into this sliver. Thus, according to this theory, "emek hashidim" must be located at the southern end of the Dead Sea.

Possible Reconciliation

1. Most of the reasons I gave for placing Sedom (or at least the battle) in the south - the salty terrain, sinkholes, and the repeated flooding and drying of large areas of land - imply a southern location because similar phenomena are observed today only in the south. Nevertheless, if in ancient times a similar process had occurred at the northern end of the sea, then a northern location would be just as plausible. In fact, according to the Al Atar article previously quoted, if the Dead Sea were to rise to 380 meters below see level (an elevation not seen in modern times), then a substantial sliver of the Jordan river valley - roughly 6 by 3 kilometers - would become flooded. Were the water level to drop again, presumably the sliver would become salty and develop sinkholes. This area would then become an reasonable setting for the battle. Then it would be logical to say that both the city and the battle were located in the north.

2. All the reasons favoring the north relate to the city of Sedom, while all the reasons favoring the south (except one) relate to the battle with Chedarlaomer. If we assume that the battle took place some distance away from the city, then nearly all the of the arguments would be reconciled perfectly. I can think of no reason why the battle would have to be next to the city; the military action both immediately before and after our battle took place over a quite wide area and there is no reason to assume this battle must have been an exception. Thus, the city of Sedom would be at the north end of the Dead Sea, and the battle with Chedarlaomer would have taken place at the south end. Overall this seems like the best solution. Lot's wife, the only dissenting piece of evidence, can be explained by the obvious argument that miracles take place in whatever manner God desires.

The Draft

There has been much discussion in Israel about modifying the draft. The main problem is a surplus in manpower. With the country's population approaching seven million, there simply are more young people than the army needs to carry out all its responsibilities cost-effectively. Unofficially, you can already avoid military service rather easily. In a sense, nobody should protest the charedi refusal to serve, because the army doesn't need them. What motivates anti-charedi protest, as well as the broad opposition to switching to a volunteer army, is the justified feeling that the army must include everyone for fairness and for socialization.

An obvious suggestion is to decrease the length of service. But for every problem this would solve, another would be created. Soldiers who serve a shorter period spend more of their service in training and thus are more expensive. And while there are too many soldiers overall, there is still a shortage in combat and professional positions. These training-intensive positions, as well as leadership positions, would still require an extended period of service. Shortening the basic period of service would further discourage people from choosing positions which the army really needs.

If the draft cannot be made voluntary and service cannot be shortened, the only option is to categorically exclude certain groups. There are two main concerns in such exclusion: fairness and efficacy. A lottery system would be fair, but not efficacious, because many of the best candidates would not be selected. Excluding the charedim is unfair, but efficacious - due to the political and social difficulty of including them, and because they might not make good soldiers anyway. Perhaps any system which preferences certain groups for practical reasons will necessarily be unfair. What is left is to aim for a system which maximizes gain and minimizes unfairness.

I think the best selection method is to draft all men for a full three years, but to excuse women from the draft. This implies discrimination on an individual level. But unlike all other possible selection methods, on a broad level it is perfectly equitable. Since every family on average contains an equal number of men and women, all social, economic, and ethnic groups would be treated equally. Furthermore, because families normally share resources among their members, the time and money burden would in fact be spread among every member of society. Men already serve longer than women and dominate combat units, so the areas of current shortage would not lose out. But the overall pool of manpower would be much smaller, and the army would no longer have to find work for many soldiers it does not need.

This approach also has several incidental but significant benefits for Israeli society. With women marrying and entering the workforce two years earlier, the country would gain economically, women would come closer to professional equality with men, and the birthrate in population groups loyal to the state would rise. Removing women from the army is desirable from a religious perspective (or from the perspective of appeasing the religious), both intrinsically and due to the freedom of behavior common in the current, mixed army. Such a removal could be paired with a large-scale induction of charedi men, resulting in perhaps an acceptable trade-off from the charedi perspective, along with the equal sharing of the defense burden among the entire Jewish population.

Weaknesses of the plan include the large gap in time commitment between men and women, and the loss by women of the socialization obtained in the army. These concerns could be addressed by requiring a year of national service from women, which might conceivably be extended to Arabs as well. Also, while women would presumably still be able to volunteer for military service, those few who do would probably have a harder time than at present. But this seems a small price to pay, when all other women would be entirely released from their current obligations.

There are currently demands in Israel to reduce the army's size, to privatize non-essential army services, to draft all populations on an equal basis, to crack down on draft and miluim evaders, to make the army environment more friendly to the religious, to increase enlistment in elite units, to decrease the economic burden caused by extended service, and so on. Unfortunately, many of these demands work at cross-purposes and might seem to be mutually exclusive. But almost all of them could be be reconciled by drafting all Jewish men, but only men. No other plan would come close to helping the areas we would like the army to improve in. Such a plan would indeed have novel side effects, but the probably scope of gain certainly makes them worth bearing.

Perspectives on Shavuot

R' Yehuda Amital:
The Magen Avraham questions why we celebrate Shavuot on the fiftieth day of the Omer, while in fact the Torah was given on Shabbat – which was the 51st day. The Maharal answers that what we are in fact celebrating is God's desire to give us the Torah, and to obligate us to receive it, even though perhaps Bnei Yisrael may have hesitated and faltered a little when they saw the great fire. When Bnei Yisrael were exposed to the great power of the Torah, it frightened them and caused them to have second thoughts about their commitment. Yet God nevertheless desired to give them the Torah, and even to force it upon them. It is God's readiness to give, and not Bnei Yisrael's readiness to receive, that we celebrate on Shavuot.

R' Aharon Lichtenstein:
What this teaches us is that after the sin [of the Golden Calf], the significance of matan Torah was greatly and seriously diminished. The nation had taken a step backwards, in a negative direction. We may compare the situation to that of a bride who was unfaithful under the very chuppa - it would have been better had she never entered the chuppa at all.
We originally posed the question of why the Torah hides the festival of matan Torah from us. Now the significance of the textual 'gap' is clear. Even Chazal refer to Shavuot as "zeman matan torateinu" (the time of the giving of the Torah) rather than as "zeman kabalat torateinu" (the time of the receiving of the Torah), because there was a giving of the Torah at the time, but not a proper receiving.

In summary: The Torah was given on what would have been the 50th day of the Omer, i.e. our holiday of Shavuot. It was only received by the Jewish people the next day, the day after Shavuot. This receiving was nullified (at least in our memories) by the sin of the Golden Calf. In its place, we try anew to receive and accept the Torah on each anniversary of the giving, which is to say each year on Shavuot.

Stupid Name Department

I saw a charedi yeshiva advertising for a "Yom Shekulo Torah" with shiurim from various rabbis. Is that meant to imply that every other day in that yeshiva is NOT full of torah? I mean, even at Gush we learn torah all day long. When we want to study one subject in-depth on an exceptional basis, we call it a "Yom Iyun". As it should be called. Not "A day which is all Torah just like every other day in this yeshiva." Of course, we ask for a "yom shekulo shabbat" on a day which is itself completely Shabbat. I guess I never was sure how to read that one literally either.

A Quick Shiur Komah

Thoughts after reading Scholem's "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism".

The basic chakira (set of possible conceptual frameworks) for (Jewish) mysticism is as follows:
The point of mysticism is to experience God's presence. There are two philosophies which allow this presence to be approached.
1) You can believe that God is already present in the world
2) You can believe God is about to enter the world, through the coming of the Messiah

The problem with #1 is that it is almost inherently pantheistic, and very quickly brings you close to heresy. Perhaps the Zohar itself has already crossed the line in this regard.

The problem with #2 is that messianic movements very easily get out of control in both the social and religious senses. Thus the Ari's messianic philosophy became the basis for that of Shabbetai Tzvi.

The restrictions on learning kabbalah (be over age 40, be married, etc.) are attempts to avoid these inherent problems. Often, it seems, these restrictions haven't been enough.

Scary.

"My oldest son told me the other day that two of his former teachers are convinced that he will not remain religious because he is a 'thinking person'."
(Source)