Ever since Sir James George Frazer’s (1854–1941) voluminous work, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (previously titled The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion, in 1890), the erroneous belief that modern, particularly Western society could be divided along the lines of …
Three mass shootings in one week. The first two were clearly white supremacist terrorist attacks – in California at the garlic festival and Texas at an El Paso Walmart, respectively. But the third, at a Dayton, white hipster bar scene area known as the Oregon …
Is it permissible to put the blood or flesh of a pig in one’s mouth?
Is it, for that matter, permissible to but any blood from another person or animal in one’s mouth, in that Judaism blanketly prohibits blood?
The opinion of the Taz1 and many other poskim2 is that one is not allowed to taste a non-kosher food of any sort (this refers to one who just tastes it with one’s tongue).3 Some say if it is an issur d’rabanan then one can taste it without swallowing.4 The reason why tasting the non-kosher is not allowed, is because we are concerned that one may come to eat it.5
How then can the European custom amongst rare communities of metzitzah b’peh(מציצה בפה, “oral suction” of the circumcised penis) be kosher? Even while the custom is clearly bizarre and disgusting, halakhically even putting blood in ones mouth deliberately is forbidden. The Talmud makes mention (Shabbat 133b) of metzitzah or “suction”, and yet no one ever believed this to be “of the mouth” (b’peh). Maimonides does not describe it in such a way in his Mishneh Torah, nor does the Talmud before him. Instead, this was accomplished with medical tubes of different varieties and sponges which performed the “suction” (מציצה). The fact that this was never mentioned to be “b’peh” makes it clear enough that it was never performed in such a way. Similarly, it was not adopted into minhagim throughout the world, where it was unheard of, and only emerges late in European history.
It is a Jewish obligation to speak out against those who practice such a non-Jewish custom of sucking a baby’s penis. This is not part of Judaism and may not hide these sins on the part of the tiny minority that commits such a crime. This is not part of the Judaism of the Torah, the Talmud, nor even of the Rambam. This is a filthy, goyish custom that must be confronted, attacked and obliterated. We cannot immitate the Catholics and cover up acts of child molestation in an effort to protect the name of Judaism from denigration. If darkness is to flee, it will only do so by casting light upon it.
Notes:
1. Y.D. 98:2.
2. Rama Y.D. 108:5, Shach 24 (this applies to other issurei achilah even if it is not an issur hanah), Pri Megadim M.Z.
Y.D. 95:15, see Aruch Ha’shulchan 24-25. Refer to Tzohar 8:pages 527-527 in depth if tasting is like eating.
3. Taz ibid.
4. Refer to Tzemach Tzedek 47, Nodeh B’Yeduda Y.D. 2:52. Some say this only means something which is pogem,
and not every issur d’rabbanan (Nodeh B’Yehuda Y.D. 2:52, see Pischei Teshuva Y.D. 98:1).
5. Rivash 288 (end). Refer to Nodeh B’Yehuda Y.D. 2:52, Otzer Divrei Haposkim Y.D. 98:page 24.
There once was a group of people who had been pushed into a deep pit. For years and years they tried to climb their way out of this pit, but as one, two or more would get to the top, the thieves who pushed them …
Megillat Esther on Sexism and “Who is a Jew?” If you really paid attention to the Megillat Esther this Purim, they would have noticed a few important things about it. First is the fact that the work is extremely pro-Woman. The text literally mocks sexism at every turn. The sexist King …
In his letter to rabbi Yosef ben Ha’Rav Yehudah, Maimonides explained his belief that in the future “all of Israel will subsist on it alone” in reference to his Mishneh Torah, over even the Talmud, as the Jewish people “will ABANDON ALL ELSE BESIDES IT without a doubt.” His words were clear.
Rambam was a genius, a great commentator and philosopher. However every one of his 13 principles has been contested by famous rabbis throughout the ages. See Marc B. Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised for a summary. Even his own son – a famous rabbi in his own right, rabbeinu Avraham – dissented with many of his views, and there can be no question from his writings that Maimonides saw himself in a prophetic light at least (which though surprising, would not take him outside of the fold).
An exceptional work on the historical realities of popular Jewish dissenting opinions to Maimonides. Much respect to the great works of the Rambam, but his accomplishments do not give him carte blanche to standardize a singular Jewish Orthodoxy, nor do they excuse his own personal biases.
We know that there was no falling out between the Rambam and his son, but that his son was quite different in approach from his father. He, nevertheless, believed that his father would have evolved in some of his views, were he still alive. As for the Rambam, we know what he thought of his only son; he regarded him as the most pious individual in his day.
In the Rambam’s day the whole Bavli Talmud was not owned by normal Jewish communities… that is to say nothing of the Yerushlami. Most would have only one tractate of the Bavli, at best, and would write for rulings to famous rabbis. To that end, the Rambam saw a need and his Mishneh Torah filled it. The sitz im leben of the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah was thus a stand in for the Talmud, in communities where it was not readily available.
Maimonides’ had many senseless opponents, and we know that his son rabbeinu Avraham defended his father against many of them. We know, however, that Maimonides also had principled ones who questioned his failure to use citation, arguing that he was not interested in pointing people to the Talmud, but in arguing that his writings alone should be accepted uncritically.
Were the man Mashiach himself, this would be problematic – as nothing should be accepted without proof, through citation or reason – but Maimonides had many problematic views on the sexes and on “the blacks” of Al-Sudan, which he described as lower than humans, which highlight the necessity of approaching his views critically, and with an eye out for bias.
The reason why i describe him as racist is because of the following key Judeo-Arabic passage:
לא נטריה ולא תקליגיה כאטראף אלתרך אלמתוגלין פי אלשמאל ואלסודאן אלמתוגלין פי אלגנוב ומן מאתלהם מטן מענא פי הדה אלאקאלים
“There are those like some among the Turks (literally, “like” certain “parties” among them: “kataraf al-Turk כאטראף אלתרך), itinerant (אלמתוגלין) in the North, and in the Sudan, the itinerants [there is NO qualifier of “kataraf al-Sudan”], in the south (ואלסודאן אלמתוגלין פי אלגנוב), AND from those who resemble them (ומן מאתלהם מטן) among us, FROM them that are in this region (מענא פי הדה אלאקאלים) [i.e. Sudanese who had been “exported”].”
The above quote sets up WHO Maimonides is talking about, when in the following paragraph he says:
“The status of all of these is like that of unthinking animals. To my mind they do not have the rank of men, but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of apes. For they have the external shape and lineaments of a man and a faculty of discernment that is superior to that of the apes.”
No one questions the above translation, or the phrasing, only who it is referring to. Based on his qualifying those “like certain parties” among the Turks, and NOT qualifying for the Sudanese, as well as EXPANDING his definition to also include Sudanese or “those who resemble them” abroad, it is clear-cut to me that Maimonides was absolutely, unquestionably racist against Sub-Saharan Africans.
This is a call not to disregard the Rambam and his Mishneh Torah, but to approach it critically and mine it for truth, while discarding the societies’ baggage which had attached itself to Maimonides.
In Adebayo Oyebade’s “The Study of Africa in Historical Perspective” the author informs us of the history of Eurocentric presumptions of Africa’s lack of history and thus, lack of civilization (7). Oyebade emphasizes, however, that history in many parts of Africa was primarily preserved by …
The occurrence of Chanukah – coming on the 24th day of the month of Kislev – corresponds with approach of the winter solstice. The holiday brings a reminder that no matter how immersed in darkness we are, light will always return. As such, we need …
Question and Comments from Jeremy ben-Daniel:
Who was the man who wrestled with Ya`qov? Was it indeed a man (ish)?`Esav? Melkhitzedeq (Shem)? Was it an angel?Was it, as the Talmud indicates, `Esav’s ‘angel’? Why did `Esav have an angel assigned to begin with? Or was it a fallen angel/exile/nephil? Did Ya`qov wrestle against gods (elohim) or for God (Elohim), or both? When he saw the face of God, was this a spiritual experience, or the sight of a physical being, or both?
Rashi notes the following: 32:5. And he commanded them, saying, “So shall you say to my master to Esau, ‘Thus said your servant Jacob, “I have sojourned with Laban, and I have tarried until now.
I have sojourned: Heb. גַּרְתִּי. I did not become an officer or a dignitary, but a stranger (גֵּר) . It is not worthwhile for you to hate me on account of your father’s blessing, [with] which he blessed me (27:29):“You shall be a master over your brothers,” for it was not fulfilled in me (Tanchuma Buber Vayishlach 5). Another explanation: גַּרְתִּי has the numerical value of 613. That is to say: I lived with the wicked Laban, but I kept the 613 commandments, and I did not learn from his evil deeds.
Interesting that this word that derives from Ger, for sojourn, or to be a stranger (in this case he was a stranger/Ger/convert for God even among his idolatrous and wicked blood relative). That this term, apparently Gerati. Here, just before Jacob becomes Israel, the father of our people, he speaks of being a convert/stranger, which just so happens to have the numerical value of 613, representing the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.
Reply from Micah ben-David Naziri:
These are excellent questions achi Jeremy. Im yirtzeh ha’Shem you will find the following response a good answer to your questions. In addition to what you have noted achi, i also like Rashi’s interpretation of garti as meaning that Jacob kept the Torah and mitzvot even while living amongst the wickedness of Laban.
Another explanation: גַּרְתִּי has the numerical value of 613. That is to say: I lived with the wicked Laban, but I kept the 613 commandments, and I did not learn from his evil deeds.
דבר אחר גרתי בגימטריא תרי”ג, כלומר עם לבן הרשע גרתי ותרי”ג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים:
Here we see another example of the path of the Torah existing before what Moses received – perhaps being actual Angelic traditions that were never formulated for any specific prophet, but were imitated by all who came in contact with them from the Angels. But we also see from garti that doing Yahadut – “Judaism”, the Praising of Yah – is being a stranger amongst the wicked and being out of step because of the mitzvot; which have been customs which have made the Jewish people seem strange and defiant of assimilation; thus provoking the antipathy of whatever dominant culture which took notice. Today Jews are more accepted and have more power in the West. Why? Because most Jews have assimilated. Those who have not have become caricatures more or less and can safely be laughed at by the dominant culture, so that they are no longer considered a real threat to assimilation.
Who was the man he wrestled with? This has posed a problem for people because it is said that he was a “man” or ish, but we read in Hosea 12.4 that “he struggled with an angel” (וַיָּשַׂר אֶל מַלְאָךְ), a play on words: yasar el malakh with Yisrael. While he struggled with a man, it was an angel who is called a man. Thus, ish (אש) is related to aish (איש) or fire, because the human being is not only animal, but also has the divine, angelic fire. Thus we see here the relationship between man and the angels, just as in the story of Abraham and Lot with the angels, and that the angels – the angel here regarded by Jacob as one of the elohim, who he saw “face to face” (אֱלֹהִים פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים) – are in the form of man just as man is in the form of the Elohim (וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ).
So Rashi must assume that this was an angel who represented Esau, even though Rashi considers Esau wicked and does not explain why he would be so defended. It is clear that the divine being has intervened not on behalf of Esau but on behalf of Jacob – if only he knew – to prevent him from fleeing, from facing his brother and owning up to his responsibilities and karma, which he was a master at circumventing. That Hosea says it is one of the elohim and an angel makes his need to disappear at dawn make more sense to later tradition; as he would need to stop struggling so that he could make his dawn prayer. Thus we read Hosea says שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים (sarah et-elohim, a play on the name Sarah), followed by the aforementioned וַיָּשַׂר אֶל מַלְאָךְ (vayasar el malakh, a play on the nameYisrael).
When he instructs Israel that it is nearly dawn, it is clear that Jacob knows why this would matter. Thus, it is either that he understands this is why the angel is asking to leave, or that Jacob knew that he would need to leave at dawn nevertheless. Still, this would be a very easy place to have the story tell of them praying together, or even the angel instructing him that he needs to leave to pray. What this leaves us with is two possibilities:
The mode of Angelic prayer was not entirely the same as Jacob’s prayer – having stricter requirements – and thus Jacob could not be expected to know the method.
The Angel was understood to be visiting for the duration of the night only. He would have been understood to have to leave at dawn for whatever reason and whatever that reason was, it seems that Jacob is assumed to have known it; to know that this Angel could not stay for the day, but had to leave by dawn. We know this is not one of the Nefilim, because of the vantage point of his knowledge. It is for this reason too that we know he is not Esau.
The reality, as well, is that Jacob was very worried about being beaten up by his brother Esau and yet his is able to grapple with this divine being. Still this divine being is able to dislocate Jacob’s hip. What is the meaning of this?
Jacob lacked confidence, even though he had a great mastery of martial arts. Still, he was worried about Esau pummeling him and describes himself as a “mother with children” in the same way that the Torah tells us that Ishmael was a na`ar (נער), a young boy, when he was sent with his mother, even though he was an adult, that Joseph was a na`ar when he was 17 and Dinah was a pre-pubescent na`ar, rather than na`arah.
Now deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I am afraid of him, lest he come and strike me, a mother with children. (32.12)
הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו כִּי יָרֵא אָנֹכִי אֹתוֹ פֶּן יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי אֵם עַל בָּנִים
Thus we read am al banim, with no preceding vav to indicate his fear for his wife and children. If we are to read this as Jacob fearing his wife and children be beaten by Esau, we see in this emphasis of his lack inability to stand up and defend his own wife and children. But we know that at this point in the story, Jacob already has all of his wives with him, and each with children; so a mother with children can only refer to him, a man acting like a vulnerable mother with children who needs someone else to protect him from a violent beast of a man like Esau.
Might the divine being thus have still been able to over power Jacob, but not without killing him? Perhaps the method of grappling of Jacob was superior and the angel knew this but had to let Jacob learn this for himself. The ability to dislocate his joint shows that the angel was both superior in power and also that he was superior in cunning, as it was in grappling that he was able to get close enough to perform this deed, and grappling which Jacob favored.
Thus we read “When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob’s hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him”, indicating that this dislocation was the purpose of their encounter, because after this we read “And he said, ‘Let me go, for dawn is breaking…” which would not be said if the dislocation had released the angel. This tells us that the nature of their grappling involved locks which did not necessitate brute force, and thus if he had needed to Jacob could have prevailed over Esau and need not fear. Yet the encounter had humbled Jacob, for even though he had learned he could defeat someone far more powerful than himself or even Esau, he learned that there was a limit to his understanding of human power, as this being merely touched his hip socket and dislocated his joint, without any application of force or physical mechanics. This showed him the limits of external martial arts.
There was once a world populated by monkeys who had been taught to revere ants. These monkeys were not stupid at all, though to human beings they might seem to be. These monkeys were in many ways the same as what we think of as …