A Remarkable Department

This afternoon, Bar Ilan's Talmud Department held its end of year Faculty Meeting. As with most such gatherings, the tone was subdued, the discussion grim. For many different reasons, Jewish Studies (along with the Humanities and many Social Sciences), finds itself at an extreme disadvantage with the Natural Sciences (I refuse to call them exact sciences) in funding, budget lines, faculty hires and even promotions.

We're not unique in that. The same prejudice for body over soul, physical over spiritual, quantity over quality, the So-called Primary over the so-called Secondary characteristics (a la Descartes, Hume, Berekeley etc.) increasingly threatens to overwhelm all of the Israeli universities. There is something both tragic and infuriating in this, since it is specifically now that Israel needs its academic scholars of Judaica, as much as it needs its scientists and its rabbis.

Check that. Israel needs its positively commited Jewish scholars more. It needs them more because it needs values, while science is (at least ostensibly) value neutral. It needs them at least as much as its rabbis, because the latter don't know how to communicate the precious heritage of Judaism and Jewish History to the non-observant, or to the skeptically observant. I know that of which I speak. Fifteen years of teaching at Bar Ilan has driven that home to me.

For a lot of the time, I saw the kind of deep and abiding interest in Judaism that marks the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis in the unique Basic Jewish Studies Minor that is required of all students. In recent years, though, this has spilled over into my home department, the Talmud Department. This is a remarkable development, because one might have thought that non-observant, non-yeshiva trained students might find us a bit forbidding. That, however, is not the case. In the past three years I've seen a steady increase in the number of non-majors who register for courses in our department. In those classes they meet and interact with Orthodox students (Often for the first time); they challenge and are challenged in turn, by those fellow students. What emerges is a moving, intellectually stunning interaction which gives birth to the common Jewish cultural language that this country desperately needs to survive.

This phenomenon is faculty-wide. As I looked around the room today, though, I had a chance to understand why our department is a particular draw. It is an unusual department. Its faculty members are incredibly diverse; Men and Women, Haredim and National Religious, American and Israeli, Sephardim and Ashkenazim, Rabbis and Laypersons, Leftists and Rightists; and every shade of gray. It is also unique, in the world, in the breadth of its interests.

Nowhere else in the world can a student register in one department and study: Dead Sea Scrolls, Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, Rabbinic Thought, Talmudic Interpretation, the History of Prayer, Rabbinic Historiography, Jewish Popular Religion and Customs, Jewish Intellectual History, the Interaction of Jewish Law and Spirituality, the impact of the Encounter with Christianity and Islam on Rabbinic Culture and Literature, Mishpat Ivri, History of Halakhah, Contemporary Halakhic Issues, Codes, Responsa Literature, the History of the Jewish and Hebrew Book and a dizzying number of other disciplines. At Hebrew University, for example, one would need to enroll in three to five different departments (in two different faculties), to have the same opportunity.

More importantly, my colleagues are menschen, a rare enough commodity in the terrarium that is academia. They care about their students. It's no wonder that we draw students from around the university. Class acts usually do.

It just gets Worse

From Ben Chorin:

To fully appreciate the insanity of today's cabinet decision in favor of releasing killers for two Israeli captives, note that Israel admits that it does not really know if the captives are alive or dead.

News flash for the brain dead: if they were alive this morning, they are dead now.

If they are returned dead, Kuntar should be returned the same way.

What do you think R. Meir of Rothenberg would have said?

Thank You, Reb Meir

This afternoon, I took a break both from medieval Ashkenaz (the book is coming along nicely, though) and the depressing present (the papers reported a 28% rise in the use of anti-depressants among all Israelis). I spent an hour listening to a shiur delivered by R. Meir Lichtenstein, in memory of his grandfather מורי ורבי Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל on the topic of The land of Israel and the State of Israel in light of the Rav's teachings. The shiur was delivered as part of YU in Israel's annual 'Torah in the After Noon,' last Yom Yerushalayim.

His message is one that I endorse fully. His unself-conscious passion is inspiring.

A treat for Erev Shabbos, especially Erev Shabbos Parshas Korach.

Plus ca Change or Santayana, Where Are You?

Neville Chamberlain Announcing 'Peace in Our Time' (1938)

The Israel Broadcasting Authority has been reposting its greatest documentary, עמוד האש (Pillar of Fire), here. It describes the development of Zionism and the history of our return to Zion, up to the declaration of the state on 5 Iyyar 1948. Based upon original footage, and in-depth interviews with eye-witnesses who are largely gone today, it is an incredibly moving, and important reminder of the absolute justice of our cause and continued residence in Eretz Yisrael. Every person who cares about who we are should watch it. ( At present, it's only available on-line in Hebrew and Russian.)

The latest chapter posted (No. 10), describes the Munich Compromise of 1938, when Neville Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia in order to appease Hitler and avoid war. The narrator, the legendar Yossi Banai, notes that Jews were far from joyous at Chamberlain's declaration of 'Peace in our Time.' They were too shaken by the cavalier way that European powers condemned a smaller nation to death, in order to avoid war or discomfort.

The only voice of sanity at the time was that of Winston Churchill. He asserted in Parliament:

I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week. I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

These words are particularly haunting this week. America and Europe, ignoring the ongoing bombardment of Sederot, pressure Israel to buy peace by dividing Jerusalem, driving 350,000 Jews from their homes and giving the Arabs all for which they ask.

Israel's ruling elites surrender to Hamas by agreeing to a ceasefire, while it keeps firing and rearming. Sunday, in return for the bodies of two heroic soldiers, Israel's corrupt government will release a horrific murderer and hundreds of terrorists to the Hizbullah.

That, in any language, constitutes surrender.

It proves lack of will on our so-called leaders' part. It betrays the corruption and/or short-sightedness that eats away at the Israeli elites, while the population is held hostage. Yes, we are being held hostage by politicians who care more for their seats and perks than for their people. We are prevented from voting or consciences, because Olmert/Livni/Barak/Yishai know they'll be swept away by public outrage and disgust. So they feed the public pablum, speaking about a peace that can never be (certainly, not in the present constellation.)

Is it a Divine Decree that these people remain in power? Is this a punishment from on High?
There is no way of knowing, though teshuvah is always in order.
So is the conclusion of Churchill's speech:

"Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

Burka Light

For those who thought that the phenomenon of Burka clad women had passed from the scene, consider now its newest incarnation: Burka Light. It's all the rage in Bat Ayin and its attraction is growing. Women (including unmarried girls) now cover their hair and wrap their hair-coverings around their necks. (This is similar to Muslim practice, making it more difficult to tell who's who.) It's called the 'Ben Ish Hai Look' or 'Shitat Ben Ish Hai.'

Since it's all about modesty, I can't post a picture here. I did find a picture from the 19th century that gives you an idea of what is involved, here. (BTW, it is possible to pull up the scarf to cover the bottom part of the face.)

The Phony Pause: A Victory for World Jihad Courtesy of Olmert/Barak/Livni

[Michael Oren, whom I know personally, is a first rate historian and whose personal political sympathies lie with classic Mapai. That's why his Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal today is so important and convincing.]

Israel's Truce With Hamas Is a Victory for Iran
By MICHAEL B. OREN

Proponents of an Israeli-Palestinian accord are praising the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that went into effect this morning. Yet even if the agreement suspends violence temporarily -- though dozens of Hamas rockets struck Israel yesterday -- it represents a historic accomplishment for the jihadist forces most opposed to peace, and defeat for the Palestinians who might still have been Israel's partners.

The roots of this tragedy go back to the summer of 2005 and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza's political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian terrorist groups, above all Hamas.

Hamas proceeded to fire some 1,000 rocket and mortar shells into Israel. Six months later Hamas gunmen, taking advantage of an earlier cease-fire, infiltrated into Israel, killed two soldiers, and captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

Hamas's audacity spurred Hezbollah to mount a similar ambush against Israelis patrolling the Lebanese border, triggering a war in which Israel was once again humbled. Hamas now felt sufficiently emboldened to overthrow Gaza's Fatah-led government, and to declare itself regnant in the Strip. Subsequently, Hamas launched thousands more rocket and mortar salvos against Israel, rendering parts of the country nearly uninhabitable.

In response, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) air strikes and limited ground incursions killed hundreds of armed Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel earned international censure for collateral civilian deaths and "disproportionate" tactics. Israel also imposed a land and sea blockade of Gaza, strictly controlling its supply of vital commodities such as a gasoline. But the policy enabled Hamas to hoard the fuel and declare a humanitarian crisis.

Israel never mounted the rolling, multi-month operation that the IDF had planned. Traumatized by his abortive performance in the Lebanon War, hobbled by financial scandals, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert balked at a military engagement liable to result in incalculable casualties and United Nations condemnations, but unlikely to halt Hamas aggression.

Like Hezbollah in 2006, Hamas won because it did not lose. Its leaders still walked Gaza's streets freely while children in Sderot and other Israeli border towns cowered in bomb shelters. Like Hezbollah, which recently wrested unprecedented powers from the Lebanese parliament, Hamas parlayed its military success into political capital.

The European Parliament demanded the immediate lifting of the Gaza blockade, and France initiated secret contacts with Hamas officials. A minister from the Israeli Labor Party, Ami Ayalon, went a step further by calling for Hamas's inclusion in peace talks -- a recommendation soon echoed by Jimmy Carter and the New York Times.

The Egyptian-brokered cease-fire yields Hamas greater benefits than it might have obtained in direct negotiations. In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and weapons smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control.

If quiet is maintained, then Israel will be required to accept a cease-fire in the West Bank as well. The blockade will be incrementally lifted while Cpl. Shalit remains in captivity. Hamas can regroup and rearm.

The Olmert government will have to go vast lengths to portray this arrangement as anything other than a strategic and moral defeat. Hamas initiated a vicious war against Israel, destroyed and disrupted myriad Israeli lives, and has been rewarded with economic salvation and international prestige.

Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Mr. Abbas's move signifies the degree to which Hamas, with Israel's help, now dominates Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph.

As the primary sponsor of Hamas, Iran is the cease-fire's ultimate beneficiary. Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders -- Gaza, Lebanon, Syria -- Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank. By activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear program and block any diplomatic effort.

The advocates of peace between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize that fact when applauding quiet at any price. The cost of this truce may well be war.

Dr. Mordekhai Kedar on Al-Jazeera

Bringing Redemption to the World....

Mordechai and Esther (Aert de Gelder (1645-1727)

Hazal, who lived and functioned a world of oral tradition, were emphatic about the precise attribution of one's sources. In addition to the basic value of intellectual honesty, this was essential in order to authenticate and evaluate the teachings that were being passed on. The best-known expression of the value they placed upon intellectual honesty is the oft-cited phrase (Avot 6, 6 and parallels): 'One who says something in the name of he who said it brings redemption to the world, as it is written (Esther 2:22), "And Esther told the king in the name of Mordekhai."*

Following the examples of my own teachers, I am extremely careful to cite sources (including comments that were made to me orally). The result is that my articles (and the emerging book on Ashkenazic mentalite) are heavily footnoted (a friend calls me the 'בעל הפוטנאטס'), despite the unhappiness of the editors who need to cope with it. Since I do a fair amount of editing, I fully understand their angst, but that's part of the job. Indeed, I insist upon the same level of sensitivity and intellectual honesty from my students when they write both MA's and PhD's. [In light of the amount of plagiarism that marks contemporary academic discourse, this demand is both timely and incurably old-fashioned.]

Recently, though, I became aware of the fact that one really needs to be careful to indicate exactly what type of assistance or information was provided. In other words, people should be thanked in terms that are commensurate with, and accurately portray, their contribution to a specific piece. Thus, instead of listing everyone who was of assistance together in one category, one should specify who read the whole (or part) of the article or book, and who simply assisted in specific connections. That way, those who invested more time and effort receive their due, while those whose involvement was more limited are acknowledged in a measure appropriate to their involvement. [Needless to say, one must always close by declaring that all of the contents remain one's own responsibility.]

We all bemoan the devaluation of language, and the destruction wrought by Deconstruction (which is happily in retreat, everywhere but in Jewish Studies). In a take off on Rav Kook, that situation requires us to strive for greater precision, greater clarity and less incorrect implications. God only knows when He will bring the final redemption. However, as the alternative reading has it, such behaviour will certainly 'bring blessing to the world.'

*For those interested in this issue in an historical context, I strongly recommend: Y. Elman and I. Gershuni, Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion, New Haven : Yale University Press 2000 and D. Sklare, Samuel ben Hofni Gaon and his Cultural World: Texts and Studies, Leiden: Brill 1996.

Kudos: Dr Mordechai Kedar

Kol ha-Kavod to Dr. Mordechai Kedar for telling it as it is:

Israeli on Arab TV: J'lem Was Ours When Moslems Worshipped Idols2 Sivan 5768, 05 June 08 12:41by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu (IsraelNN.com)

Bar Ilan University political scientist Dr. Mordechai Kedar told a Moslem show host on the Arabic-language Al Jazeera television network, "Jews were in Jerusalem while your ancestors were drinking wine and blowing to idols."

In a heated debate with the narrator, he added, "We don't need your permission to build" in the capital of Israel, Jerusalem. The encounter occurred earlier this week, when Jews around the world celebrated Jerusalem Unification Day. Dr. Kedar has frequently appeared on the widely viewed Qatar-based network but this time encountered a sharp attack from the show's host, Jimal Rian.

"Building in Jerusalem is another nail in the coffin in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority," narrator Jimal Rian asserted. Dr. Kedar answered in fluent Arabic, "This was our capital 3,000 years ago, and we were here when your forefathers were drinking wine, burying girls alive and worshipping pre-Muslim idols. This is our city and it will be our city forever." His reference to Muslims drinking wine, which is forbidden in Islam, infuriated the host. Rian wagged his finger in the air and said excitedly, "If you want to talk about history, you cannot erase Jerusalem from the Koran, and don't attack the Muslim religion if we want to continue talking." Dr. Kedar replied, "Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran. Jerusalem is a Jewish city.

"The Al Jazeera host responded by quoting a verse from the Koran in which he thought Jerusalem was mentioned by name, but stopped in the middle upon realizing that it only refers to "the farthest place." Dr. Kedar: "Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran even once. You can't rewrite the Koran on air on Al Jazeera."

Rian changed the subject to "settlements" and asked Dr. Kedar why Israel is building 1,000 new apartments and deciding to build thousands more while there are rumors that "Jerusalem will include all of the West Bank .

The Bar Ilan researcher replied. "My friend, Israel is not counting the number of apartments that Qatar is building on the Qatar Peninsula so why are you doing so in Jerusalem? Jerusalem is our city forever and is not an issue for you, for Al Jazeera or for anyone else. Period. Jerusalem belongs only to Jews. Replying to Rian's question if Dr. Behar's assessment is the basis for talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA), he declared, "My friend, I invite you to Jerusalem so you can see with your own eyes that it has become a flourishing city after it was in ruins under Arab rule until 1967. We rebuilt the city and opened it to Christians, Moslems and Jews equally, unlike under Muslim rule" that prohibited other religions.

The political scientist told Al Jazeera viewers, "The West bank does not belong to any nation because it was not under a nation's jurisdiction, unlike the Sinai Peninsula." No one can say it is occupied," he argued. "From what country did we take it? Until 1967, Jordan occupied it. Therefore, we can do what we want." He explained that Al Jazeera takes a jihadic and anti-Israel stance in order to detract viewers' attention from the wealth of the oil-rich Arab kingdoms, including Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based. "The amount of poison that they disseminate about us from our home is too dangerous, and something had to be done," he recently told the Jewish Forward, referring to the Israeli government's unannounced partial boycott of the network.

He labeled Al Jazeera "the mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood," the radical terrorist party that is gaining popularity in Egypt. Al Jazeera television claims 100 million viewers and has Israel-based studios in Jerusalem, Gaza and Ramallah.

Ain't it the Truth

Hat tip: Seforim Blog