A Meshichist Gimmel Tammuz Essay - Analysis

Last year, I pointed out that the Five Towns Jewish Times accidentally published a messianist essay in honor of Gimmel Tammuz, and gave an analysis. The reason this type of thing can be accidentally published is that many meshichists, messianists, believe that the Rebbe is mashiach even though dead, or that he is not dead, yet believe that it is often counterproductive to publicize this fact explicitly among non-messianists. Yet they still want to spread the Good News. And so, a new art form is born, in which on the overt level nothing is explicit, but a careful reading reveals a messianist message.

This was borne out by last year's analysis. On to this year's essay, which was published by a self-confessed messianist who believes even after the Rebbe's death that the Rebbe is mashiach. It was posted on Aussie Echoes, under the assumption that it was non-messianist.

Before getting to the actual essay, it is important to establish the beliefs of the author, a Rabbi Yossi Krauss. This because we can establish two facts about him:

1. He is a meshichist even after the Rebbe's death.
2. He is willing to disguise these beliefs to appeal to a specific audience.

We have a transcript of a radio interview with Rabbi Braun.

We see he believes that he can get answers from the Rebbe by putting letters into the Igros:

Yossi Braun: Talk about coincidence and statistics. We mentioned the letters of the Rebbeh; where the letters of the Rebbeh work they’re currently in print, 26 volumes of the Rebbeh’s letters in Hebrew. Those 26 volumes cover almost every topic on the face of the earth. People have written to the Rebbeh the letter, and put it into a volume of his old communications.

Rachael Kohn: At random?

Yossi Braun: At random. So take a volume off the shelf, if you have the entire set, you just take any volume, stick in the letter right there, and then people have opened the book because it’s after all a book of advice, and then again, at random, there was a letter relating particularly to that experience. Now I’m not a statistician but I would imagine that the statistics of having the letter to talk about a personal experience, which relates to all the three reasons why I didn’t want to buy a house in a particular location, there were three reasons in my mind: I was going to move out of the Eastern Suburbs, and go to another location. There were three difficulties. One difficulty was very difficult for my wife in that location; the other difficulty would be difficult for my kinds; and another difficulty was myself. Three specific issues. Open up the Rebbeh’s book and the last day there was about a person moving and the Rebbeh says the place you’re moving will be very hard for your wife because of such-and-such, for your kids because of that or that, relating exactly to the particular, now that as far as statistics are concerned, I think that goes a bit too far. I will check through the index of the 20 volumes, it’s in 20 volumes, I didn’t find any other letter with nature. So I find that a bit difficult to stick that in the realm of coincidence.

And then, at the very close of the interview:

Rachael Kohn: Do you think it has promoted more goodness for the Lubavitchers, or has it divided them?

Yossi Braun: That’s a difficult question because in some instances, promoting more goodness and kindness, some people when they see the Rebbe as the Meshiakh, it encourages them, not only the Lubavitchers but even non-Lubavitchers if they see someone, a potential Meshiakh so to speak, that encourages them to increase and uplift their game. For other people that’s a bit too much of a radical message, and it might give them a negative message. I believe in every single place every individual who’s in charge of his own household should set the tone for his own place. For me to tell my children that the Rebbeh’s the Messiah, I don’t think any negative consequences come out of it, at this particular stage. For someone else, there might be something completely negative; there’s no set rule about that, there’s no obligation to identify the Rebbeh as the Messiah. There’s no musts to say that he’s the Messiah. It’s your decision, it’s my decision, it’s our decision. We see the criteria of the Messiah and I come to the conclusion, I say, ‘Hey! that fits my Rebbeh’, I might be very, very excited about that. I might start to share that example with others, or I might say, ‘No, maybe I’m not going to share that excitement with others.’ If they reach that conclusion, fine; if they reach a different conclusion, that’s fine too. So I think it’s really up to the individual.

Thus, he is a meshichist, who believes that the Rebbe is mashiach, but realizes that in certain contexts it is not advisable to start proclaiming this. Thus, one can be a meshichist and loudly proclaim it, or else on can choose "not to share that excitement with others."

Now, Gimmel Tammuz is the Rebbe's yahrtzeit, and a natural day for meshichists to declare that the Rebbe is alive, and is mashiach. On the other hand, if you want your essay to be carried by mainstream outlets, either in ignorance or complicit since there is plausible deniability, it pays to disguise the message somewhat. This is indeed what Yanki Tauber did last year in the Five Towns Jewish Times on Gimmel Tammuz. You can read my post about it.

On to an analysis of the essay by Rabbi Yossi Braun:

Rebbe Oh Rebbe!
Reflections for Gimmel Tammuz
By Rabbi Yossi Braun

My fingers are numb, the keyboard buttons are stiff and rigid, the mouse has frozen and the computer screen is staring me right in the eye appearing as one mass of blurriness. I want to scream and shout; tell the world his glory…

I want to give a message loud and clear in CAPS, BOLD AND UNDERLINED – Let my people know….

He wants to tell the world "his glory." Leave aside that this is something one might say about Hashem. What does he want to tell? What is this glory about the Rebbe?

Well, it certainly is oddly reminiscent of what he said in the transcript above about the Rebbe's messiah-ship:

"I might be very, very excited about that. I might start to share that example with others"

This is quite plausible the message he wants to spread loud and clear, in CAPS, BOLD, AND UNDERLINED, to let his people know. But then the ellipses, because he knows it won't be accepted.

But it’s not happening. The words have become stuck in my throat. And my fingers are not cooperating.

I just can’t. I’m at a loss for words.

Then,

I have zero answers and loads of questions, doubts, confusions and uncertainties.
This is the wrong day, date and occasion. No, I can’t come to terms with it. I hate it.
The most eloquent speaker, the most meaningful metaphor, the most moving story – it just doesn’t work for me.

No explanation can do justice. No theory can cure the wound.
There is this huge gaping hole in my heart and no rationale can fill the hole and bridge the gap. You just can’t mend a broken heart.

What is there to have questions, doubts, and confusion about? What is in need of "explanation" and "theory?" Well, for a meshichist, which we know he is, it is the fact of the Rebbe's (apparent) death.

But depression, melancholy and grieving is so off the mark too.

And “remembering his legacy” and “getting on with life” is just so amiss, so wrong and anathema to everything we stand for.
It’s called “losing the plot”. Missing the point. Totally off.

No, silence is not an option either.

Yet one should not grieve. And one should not move on and remember his legacy. This misses the point, for the Rebbe is mashiach. So silence is not an option.

So he cannot come out and say it, yet he also cannot be silent. He tries to find middle ground by saying it yet not saying it:

Something must be said. Related. Announced. And possibly even shouted from the hilltops.
But what is that “something”? How do we go about it? Where is the secret formula?
It doesn’t exist. There is no secret formula

Which brings me back to the beginning: My fingers are numb, the keyboard buttons are stiff and rigid, the mouse has frozen…..

Thus, he wants to spread his excitement, but how to go about it? There is no secret formula by which he can spread this message. Thus, this essay, which begins "My fingers are numb, the keyboard buttons are stiff and rigid, the mouse has frozen..." This essay is his attempt to spread the message.

We’re lost, confused and torn. Torn between reality and another form of reality. Between heart and mind. Between The Truth and our truth. Between the present and the future.

Here is where it gets beautiful. How are we lost, confused and torn? Well, we are "torn between reality and another form of reality." This is a popular refrain of meshichists. That in one reality, which is what appears to our deficient perception, the Rebbe is dead and not with us. Just like Moshe appeared dead in a vision before the sin of the Golden Calf. But there is another form of reality, "The Truth" as opposed to "our truth," in which the Rebbe is not actually dead. I am not making this up. This is what has been argued. And it is what Rabbi Braun is, in code, arguing for right here.

This is also the difference "Between the present and the future." At present, we don't see that the Rebbe is here with us and is mashiach, but soon! soon, we will all see, in the near future!

This is the meaning of "Between heart and mind." The heart wrenches from the Rebbe's death, yet the sechel of Torah tells him that the Rebbe is not dead and is still mashiach. As he continues:

Sure, we know and understand: the Rebbe is here like before. With us and in us. Nothing has changed.

Yet, the heart is still aching: nothing has changed yet so much has changed; so much is lacking and wanting.

Thus, nothing has changed. The Rebbe is here like before. That is what he knows and understands. Yet people cannot see the Rebbe since the Rebbe's histalkus, and it is hard to keep and promote the faith.

And here is where he gets explicit. How does he transition from what we know and understand about the Rebbe's death, and how the Rebbe is here like before?

Certainly, we believe with perfect faith, we acknowledge the fact that Moshiach is coming any second; it’s going to be something like never before. But, “we need some spirits ‘til we get to the bar”.

There you have it. The Rebbe is Moshiach, and he "is coming any second. And it’s going to be something like never before." What in the world does this have to do with the Rebbe's absence and the confusion? It is a non sequitur, unless the Rebbe is mashiach. And just as "so much is lacking and wanting," so too "we need some spirits ‘til we get to the bar," we need further encouragement in believing that the Rebbe, Mashiach, is still around, until he manifests himself overtly. In part, this is the purpose of his essay.

Thus:

Certainly, we believe with perfect faith, we acknowledge the fact that Moshiach is coming any second; it’s going to be something like never before. But, “we need some spirits ‘til we get to the bar”.

Rebbe Oy Rebbe! How we long to see your holy face again and draw inspiration from your holy countenance! If only we can hear your voice once again. One more time.

The transition once again from waiting with perfect faith for Moshiach, but longing to see him for encouragement, to longing to see the Rebbe's face again.

Then:

Shir Hashirim feels so relevant like never before.

Oh Rebbe! “Show me your appearance, let me hear your voice, for your voice is pleasant and your appearance is comely”.

I remember the farbrengens; I remember the Rebbe’s voice. How good were the days when “I delighted and sat in his shade and his fruit was so sweet to my palate”.

“On my bed at night, I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him but I did not find him. I will arise and go about the city, in the market places and in the city squares. I will seek him…”

Hey. Wait a minute. I hear something. True. I’m in a deep slumber but my heart is awake and beating fast. It’s coming. Here it is.

“Kol dodi dofek. My beloved is knocking: Open for me, my sister, my beloved….
I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had hidden and was gone. I sought him, but found him not; I called him, but he did not answer me”.

This is simply searching and longing for the Rebbe. Fine. But then:

A moment of truth, but it’s all gone. What now? So where do we go from here?

We all have those moments where it rings so true. Where we experience a glimpse of the future, a taste of “living with Moshiach”. Where we begin to appreciate our higher calling.

So you experience for a moment the Rebbe's presence, despite his death. For he was talking about seeking the Rebbe. As he says "we all have those moments where it rings so true." That is, special clarity that the Rebbe is mashiach. He writes "Where we experience a glimpse of the future, a taste of “living with Moshiach”."

He continues:

This was a moment which needs to be savoured. It was a moment where the heart has detected some of the brainwaves. It became in touch with The Truth. It has been washed, if only for a moment, with the Torah Truth.

He thus has returned to the themes he developed earlier in his essay, about heart vs. mind, and our truth vs. The Torah Truth. If you recall -- never mind, I will cite it again:

We’re lost, confused and torn. Torn between reality and another form of reality. Between heart and mind. Between The Truth and our truth. Between the present and the future.

Except now he has set up the future as the time of mashiach. And so, when he writes

This was a moment which needs to be savoured. It was a moment where the heart has detected some of the brainwaves. It became in touch with The Truth. It has been washed, if only for a moment, with the Torah Truth.

that the heart has detected the brainwaves, he means that the heart, which felt the Rebbe's lack, is for a moment aware of the Rebbe's presence. Which for a meshichist has much different meanings than the metaphorical. It has become "in touch with The Truth" instead of "our truth" -- that is, that the Rebbe is still present. As he said before, reality and another form of reality.

He continues:

“Behold, he is standing behind our wall, watching through the windows, peeking through the lattices”.

We ought to take those fleeting moments of inspiration and invest them. Build on them. ACT ON IT.

How so?

Create an ongoing dialogue between your heart and mind. The gap can be bridged and will be bridged. You can sync your heart with the reality of Torah. Align your emotions with the promise of a future.

That is, you can sync your heart (which denies the Rebbe's presence) with the quote unquote Torah reality, rather than the real reality, and thus become a meshichist. Thus again the heart and mind. And align emotions (heart) with "the promise of a future" -- namely, of messianic times, as he wrote above "we experience a glimpse of the future, a taste of “living with Moshiach”."

He concludes:

It works. Action is the place where heart and mind can meet.

Through “following in his footsteps”, learning about Moshiach and keeping his directives, it will happen. It will be for real. In this world. B’gashmiyus mamosh. And imminently, very very soon.

“The sound of my beloved, behold, he is coming, skipping over the mountains, jumping over the hills”.

Thus, all these actions - which are messianic in nature and intent (learning about Moshiach to bring mashiach), it will be "for real." What he was referring beforehand as reality. B’gashmiyus, a physically manifest and perceivable Rebbe. (Mamosh is used by some to refer cryptically to Menachem Mendel Shneerson.) And it should happen imminently, very soon.

He -- which is used earlier clearly to refer to the Rebbe -- is coming, skipping over the mountains. And this immediately following that mashiach is coming "imminently, very very soon."

This is obvious even without knowing from beforehand that the author is a meshichist. Sometimes the subtext needs to be pointed out, though. And sometimes people will be in denial even after it is pointed out. And even after it is also pointed out that the author has confessed to being a meshichist. In which case it is a waste of time to argue.

As I said in my initial reaction to this article, Blech.

Yevamot daf 63: An Interesting Derasha

Citing from my Rif blog, though from a post not posted up yet:

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If one loves his neighbors and brings close his relatives, and marries his sister's daughter,
{Yevamot 63a}

and lends a sela to a pauper at his pressing time, upon him the Scriptures states {Yeshaya 58:9}:

ט אָז תִּקְרָא וַה יַעֲנֶה, תְּשַׁוַּע וְיֹאמַר הִנֵּנִי: אִם-תָּסִיר מִתּוֹכְךָ מוֹטָה, שְׁלַח אֶצְבַּע וְדַבֶּר-אָוֶן.

9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD will answer; thou shalt cry, and He will say: 'Here I am.' If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking wickedness;

What is the nature of this derasha? Well, the context would seem to provide the list of positive acts:

ז הֲלוֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ, וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת: כִּי-תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ, וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם.	7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
ח אָז יִבָּקַע כַּשַּׁחַר אוֹרֶךָ, וַאֲרֻכָתְךָ מְהֵרָה תִצְמָח; וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ, כְּבוֹד יְהוָה יַאַסְפֶךָ.	8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy rearward.
ט אָז תִּקְרָא וַיהוָה יַעֲנֶה, תְּשַׁוַּע וְיֹאמַר הִנֵּנִי: אִם-תָּסִיר מִתּוֹכְךָ מוֹטָה, שְׁלַח אֶצְבַּע וְדַבֶּר-אָוֶן.	9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD will answer; thou shalt cry, and He will say: 'Here I am.' If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking wickedness;

"Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry" is obviously parallel to "lends a sela to a pauper at his pressing time." I would venture that וְכִסִּיתוֹ, וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם, " that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh" likely refers to marrying a niece. וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת, especially the part about bringing to your house, bayit, perhaps is the basis for bringing close relatives, and for loving neighbors. Still working on that.

Roshah Parua As Non-Braided

There is an interesting theory out there about skeletons found at Masada, and whether they were Roman or Jewish. Since the braided woman's hair found there was detached from the woman's head (not present) while she was still alive, some researcher suggests that the woman must have been Roman and subjected to Eshet Yefat Toar.

Personally, I highly doubt it -- that the woman had been subjected to shearing of hair exactly on the spot where captured. I suppose they assume the hair was detached while she was alive because the skeleton was not present. But all sorts of other possibilities exist. For example, someone moved the woman's body after death, so it would not be disgraced. Or a wig. Etc.

{Update: rereading the article, it is some forensic analysis, rather than absence of the skeleton, that leads to the conclusion that the hair was cut off while she was alive...}

Of interest to me was a remark on PaleoJudaica that

Her braided hair however suggests that she was married, since a woman in the Greco-Roman world changed her hairstyle after marriage to symbolize her unavailability to any man but her husband (Cosgrove 2005)

which would recommend the (minority) reading of Rosha Parua as unbraided rather than uncovered. Joined with the assumption (and reading of the gemara) of most that this distinction was of married vs. unmarried Jewish women.

With this custom manifesting itself of Jewish women, then becoming daat yehudit. (Rabbi Yishmael's scriptural derivation aside.)

A Plug for MBD's Latest CD -- The Yiddish Collection

I usually don't plug this kind of thing, but here feel it to be somewhat of an ethical obligation.

This latest CD is a collection of his Yiddish songs, and -- horror of horrors! -- it contains the song "Yiddin" on it.

Big deal that it is a Jewish adaptation of Genghis Khan! It is a funny point, but not a horrific one.

Some other bloggers are arguing that it is a problem of "yashrus" that he does not credit the original musicians and that he is not paying them royalties. Some are casting it as a "halachic" issue of "yashrus," ignoring that their specific conception of "yashrus" is by definition subjective, and it is quite possible that MBD does not share this particular conception.

I can see this fitting very well into the halachic, and ethical, class of "zeh neheneh vezeh lo chaser," this one benefits and this one does not lose anything. (But then just appeal to "yashrus!" Note I am not ruling halacha lemaaseh here.) And I can question just as well whether it is "yashrus" to act all high-and-mighty and full-of-yourself, and try to deprive a fellow Jew of his livelihood, via encouragement not to buy the album. And to be upset that MBD apparently did not read your blog and then do teshuva.

Plus, it does not seem like the German band is really that bothered. To cite from a certain blogger who corresponded with them, here is their response:

Hi Chaim , great to hear from you! I am the manager of Dschinghis-Khan, Yes I have heard about it and we are performing for a lot of Jewish weddings all over the world. Just coming up on Saturday we going to Moscow to perform at such a wedding!

There must be many covers on Dschinghis Khan and Moscow. I heard a big Jewish band playing the song "Walking down Broadway" some time ago In the middle of July we are performing for half a million people in Mongolia for the 800 year state celebration! We are really working on the case to come for a festival to Israel this year! Anyway I am very happy people enjoying our music there.

The very best of regards,
Heinz Gross

That is, he assumes there are many such "covers" (adaptations) and that he is happy that people are enjoying their music.

Anyway, check it out.

How The Trickster Maggid Fleeced A Misnaged

With all the hubbub recently about Artscroll's editorial decision to omit negative details about subjects of Rabbinic biographies, transforming such works into hagiographies, it is interesting to encounter a negative story, told over by Shlomo Carlebach and Susan Yael MeSinai, about a certain Chassidishe Rebbe.

Of cource, he actually believes it is a positive story, not recognizing the story's true import. Kind of like if he had told the misnagdish Chassidic story of "there was Shabbos to the left of us, Shabbos to the right of us, but where my Rebbe was, there was no Shabbos!" thinking this was in fact a powerful story. And I would venture, based on certain details, that it is in fact a true story. I encountered it at Heichal HeNegina:

Introduction
Most people are so out of touch with life in this world that they think it's crazy to speak of life on the Other Side. But it isn't. There's life in this world and the next. According to Jewish tradition, while Heaven is more pure, life in this world is the central focus. Men come here to be fixed and made whole.
Word has it that the tzaddikim run both worlds. Essentially, they run the whole show. The Heavenly Court is governed by tzaddikim who have died recently. They replace other righteous men, tzaddikim who've been in Heaven too long to remember the reality of struggle in this world.
Once Rebbe Michel Zlotchever passed away, he was called to judge on the Heavenly Court. As soon as he took his place, he came down harshly on all those he had to review.
"How could you do such wrong?" he yelled at them.
Finally, one of the tzaddikim on earth realized what was happening and began to complain: "You can't appoint, as a judge, a man who has never sinned! What does the Zlotchever know of the hardships of Moishe the Water Carrier? He comes from a family that for thirteen generations made no mistakes."
The worldly tzaddikim protested his severity so much that it was finally decreed that the Zlotchever would be retired and the tzaddik who had first complained should take his place. The decree went out just before Shabbos. The tzaddik on earth barely had enough time to say good-bye to his wife.
Judging is done in heaven, but fixing takes place in this world, sometimes before the Judgment, sometimes after. We are speaking here of fixing the souls of those who have left this world. Judging will determine whether you go to Heaven or Hell, whether you are permitted to come back to life.
But if the merchandise is damaged, it's not a question of Paradise or reincarnation. The vessels are broken. They need to be mended and made whole again. This kind of repair doesn't take place in Heaven. Nor can we do it ourselves.
A soul who needs fixing has to come back into the world and look for a tzaddik to help him. Naturally, if he was close to one while he was alive he will have no problem, because his soul is still attached to that tzaddik. But what happens to a person who was never attached to a tzaddik during his lifetime?


The Story
Everybody knows that the Trisker Maggid, Reb Avromoleh, was one of the eight sons of Rebbe Motteleh of Chernobyl who was mamash a tzaddik gadol. Reb Motteleh was the center of all the tzaddikim. He took care of the living and the dead and was the master of the lamed-vav tzaddikim, the Thirty-Six Righteous Men who hold up the world.
Before he passed away, Reb Motteleh divided his kingdom among his children and put the Trisker Maggid in charge of the people from the Other Side.
Reb Avromoleh lived like this. At eight o'clock in the morning he'd get up, go to the mikveh and pray. At two o'clock in the afternoon, he would start to yawn. "I'm so tired, I've got to lie down a little bit." He'd go to his room until three, then pray both afternoon and evening prayers. At ten o'clock at night he might start yawning again. "I'm so tired. I've got to go back to my room."
The fact of the matter is that the Trisker Maggid never ate and never slept. He also never kept any books in his room, because - as everybody knows - when he closed the door to his room he was dealing with souls from the Other World who needed fixing.
People from the Other Side are not able to read Torah. In order to avoid making them feel bad, the Trisker Maggid never permitted books in his room. If he found one, he put it out.
The Trisker Maggid once came to a village where only one Yiddeleh [Jew] had enough room in his house to accommodate the Rebbe and his Chassidim. But this man was a real Misnagid [an opponent of Chassidus]. He had heard many stories from his fellow Misnagdim and was suspicious of the rumor that the Trisker Maggid never slept and never ate.
"Eating I can believe. He sleeps so much, he doesn't need to eat. But he doesn't even keep a book in his room, so you can't tell me he isn't up there napping!"
This wealthy Yiddeleh was more than happy to have the Trisker Maggid as his guest, because it would give him a chance to prove what Reb Avromoleh was doing behind closed doors. "He's snoring, I'm sure."
While the Trisker Maggid was davening Ma'ariv, the evening prayer, the Yiddeleh managed to get into Reb Avromoleh's room and to hide under the bed.

At ten o'clock, the Trisker Maggid said to his Chassidim, "I have to go back to my room."
The rich Yiddeleh heard Reb Avromoleh come into the chamber and felt him sit down on the bed.
No sooner had the Chassidim closed the door to give the Rebbe a little privacy when it seemed to open again. A crowd pushed their way into the room. The man could hear the shuffle of feet, the murmuring appeals.
During the day, the host had already witnessed the Trisker Maggid's audiences with ten, maybe even thirty people, at a time. But this sounded like thousands. What was happening? Where were all these people coming from? How could there even be a place for them in this little bedroom?
During the day, people would complain: "Rabbi! I'm sick. Please cure my back." "I need money for my business."
"Would you find a wife for my son?"
But by night, the people were saying, "Rebbe! I'm so broken! They won't let me into Paradise. They won't let me into Hell. All I can do is wander. Rebbe, please fix my soul."
The worst was that the Misnagid heard so many voices in the room. But when he peeked out from underneath the bed, he couldn't see any feet. The Yiddeleh was so frightened that he was shaking and had to do his best to keep his teeth from chattering.
Suddenly, he heard another, different voice cry out: "Rebbe! Have compassion on my tormented neshama [soul]. Fix me! Fix my soul!"
"What can I do for you?" the Trisker Maggid asked. "While you were alive, you never bothered to come to me. You didn't even give me one kopeck for tzedaka, one penny for charity, to connect yourself to me. So how can I help you now?"
"There must be a way!" The poor soul pleaded with the Rebbe, from a place of deep anguish.
"Actually, there is one way. Your neighbor, Shmuelik, was one of my top Chassidim. Shmuelik gave me a great deal of charity during his lifetime. If he were to tell me now that one penny of the riches he gave as tzedaka was for you, then I could find a way to help you."
"Shmuelik would do that for me, I'm sure."
"Fine! Then I want you to go and ask him!"
"How can I do that? He won't believe that I come from you."
"Then I'll send somebody along to act as your witness." At this point, the Trisker Maggid gave a strong, swift kick under the bed and said to the Yiddeleh: "Come out!"
When the Yiddeleh realized that the Trisker Maggid was about to send him into the Other World as witness to an exchange between two souls, he began pleading from under the bed. "Please, Rebbe! Don't do this to me! I promise I won't tell anybody what I saw!"
"Come out!"
The Yiddeleh came out, crawling on his stomach. He was crying, screaming, clinging to the Rebbe's feet.
"Please, Rebbe! You've seen! I have a wife and three children. I don't want to die yet. I'm not ready to die!"
"G-d forbid you should die. But if you're going to spy on me, you must go as my witness. Take my stick and walk with the soul of this man to the cemetery."
The Yiddeleh looked around. The greatest nightmare of all was that there was absolutely no one else in the room, only himself and the Trisker Maggid.
"Knock on the first grave in the second row and say that Avraham ben Chana orders Shmuel ben Rivka to give one penny to fix the neshama of this Yiddeleh - Yosseleh, his neighbor."

Postscripts:
Reb Shlomo concluded the story by saying: The beautiful aspect of this story is that I actually heard it from the great-great-grandson of the man who hid under the bed. It goes without saying that he lived to become a very great Trisker Chassid.

And Yrachmiel of Ascent added: [This was] confirmed by the general manager of Ascent, who is the great-great-grandson of the Trisker Maggid.

Zechuso yagein aleinu v’al kol Yisrael – May the Trisker Maggid’s merits protect us all!

The "problem" with this story -- well, actually, the problems are many, but one big "problem" is that this misnaged only heard the soul speaking while he was under the bed. Once he was out of the bed and was able to see the Trickster Maggid's lips, amazingly, the soul fell silent! One would almost think -- dare I say it? -- that the Trickster Maggid was changing his voice and throwing his voice, to make it seem that there were souls in the room. The same is used by channelers when conducting a seance.

Indeed, he obviously knew throughout that the misnagid was under the bed. That is how he was able to give him a kick at the proper moment. A cynic might say that this was all a put-on.

And indeed, what was the import of his words? That a tormented soul, in need of fixing, could not get it, because he did not give tzeddaka to the Trickster Maggid! As the story above that one illustrated (see on Heichal HaNegina website), the Rebbe would use this money for the expenses of maintaining a Rebbishe court, serving many at his table. Thus, he was in need of constant influx of money. And indeed, this misnaged, after being sent on a literal fool's errand to knock on a gravestone, accompanying a figment of his imagination -- this misnaged became a big chassid of the Maggid, and likely a big financial supporter as well.

There is also the fact that it is nonsense to say that the Rebbe did not eat or sleep. Indeed, the gemara on Teruma daf 3a states that if someone took an oath not to sleep for three days or not to eat for seven days, this is a shevuat shav. Why not say that this is indeed possible for some people? If the Trisker Maggid could do it, couldn't a Tanna as well? Indeed, where Moshe says that he didn't eat bread and didn't drink water on Har Sinai, it is either idiomatic, representing his great devotion to the cause, or else is a great miracle assisted by God.

Indeed, if the chassidim though the Trisker maggid didn't eat, it must have been at his own design, such that he did not eat in front of them. This means that he must have eaten in seclusion in his own room (or else in the mikveh before davening!), in order to foster this impression.

Indeed, this is just like Pharaoh, about whom the midrash relates that in order to create the impression that he was a deity, would immerse in the Nile each morning, where he would attend to his bodily needs. This is not a good thing for Pharaoh to do, and it was not a good thing for the maggid to do.

His not having seforim in his room is also a peculiarity that seems designed to further this impression that he communicated with dead souls. It is also possible that he did not like to learn, and preferred to spend this time in seclusion resting on his bed and eating.

Is it important that this story be told, despite its negative aspects? I would say yes, because of the insights it gives us into chassidism and what people would fall for in those times. And indeed, they fall for it in our times as well -- after all, this is still told as a positive story, and people go to all sorts of fake mekubalim for miracles.

Note: Initially, I misread the Heichal HeNegina account that this second story was in an Artscroll work - in fact, it was the first story, which does not appear here.

Another Reason Not to Eat Foi Gras

There is a definite aspect of tzaar baalei chaim in force-feeding geese, one that was obviated in Europe in days of old because it was for a purpose, goose-liver prepared in this way being a necessary way of people to get their nutrients -- and this may not be obviated in America today. There is also the issue of whether this force-feeding causes the goose to be a teraifa.

But now there is further reason - chamira sakanta meIsura. And researches have found some troubling results. Reuters reports:

Geese force-fed and then slaughtered for their livers may get their final revenge on people who favor the delicacy known as foie gras: It may transmit a little-known disease known as amyloidosis, researchers reported on Monday.

Tests on mice suggest the liver, popular in French cuisine which uses it to make pate de foie gras and other dishes, may cause the condition in animals that have a genetic susceptibility to such diseases, Alan Solomon of the University of Tennessee and colleagues reported.

That would suggest that amyloidosis can be transmitted via food in a way akin to brain diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or CJD, which can cause a rare version of mad cow disease in some people who eat affected meat products or brains.

...

Sometimes Alzheimer's disease, the most common form of dementia, is described as a type of amyloidosis as well.

Read more there.

Of course, research has been found to cause cancer in mice. ;) And we will have to see if this is borne out, and whether it in fact translates to humans, and whether the likely impact is enough to call it sakanta, and whether shomer petaim Hashem applies, at it has applied until now.

Still, something to watch out for, even not from the perspective of halacha.

Note: Of course, not intended halacha lemaaseh.

(And check out BluishJoggers).

Ezekiel 4:9 Cereal

So I recently saw the following cereal in someone's pantry (actually, a slightly different box - original, rather than Golden Flax, so I don't know about the kashrut of the cereal depicted to the right).

From Food for Life, it is Ezekiel 4:9 Cereal! As they say,

"As described in the Holy Scriptures: 'Take also unto thee Wheat and Barley and Beans and Lentils and Millet and Spelt and put them in one vessel and make bread of it...' Ezekiel 4:9"

I saw this and could not believe it, because of the negative connotations in the context of the verse. Sure, one can try to cast it as God giving instructions to his prophet for a healthy diet. But, the connotation is that they prepare their cereal making use of either human or bull excrement! The verses in question:

ח וְהִנֵּה נָתַתִּי עָלֶיךָ, עֲבוֹתִים; וְלֹא-תֵהָפֵךְ מִצִּדְּךָ אֶל-צִדֶּךָ, עַד-כַּלּוֹתְךָ יְמֵי מְצוּרֶךָ.	8 And, behold, I lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast accomplished the days of thy siege.
ט וְאַתָּה קַח-לְךָ חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִים וּפוֹל וַעֲדָשִׁים וְדֹחַן וְכֻסְּמִים, וְנָתַתָּה אוֹתָם בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְעָשִׂיתָ אוֹתָם לְךָ, לְלָחֶם: מִסְפַּר הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה שׁוֹכֵב עַל-צִדְּךָ, שְׁלֹשׁ-מֵאוֹת וְתִשְׁעִים יוֹם--תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ.	9 Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof; according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, even three hundred and ninety days, shalt thou eat thereof.
י וּמַאֲכָלְךָ, אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ--בְּמִשְׁקוֹל, עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁקֶל לַיּוֹם: מֵעֵת עַד-עֵת, תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ.	10 And thy food which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; from time to time shalt thou eat it.
יא וּמַיִם בִּמְשׂוּרָה תִשְׁתֶּה, שִׁשִּׁית הַהִין: מֵעֵת עַד-עֵת, תִּשְׁתֶּה.	11 Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of a hin; from time to time shalt thou drink.
יב וְעֻגַת שְׂעֹרִים, תֹּאכְלֶנָּה; וְהִיא, בְּגֶלְלֵי צֵאַת הָאָדָם--תְּעֻגֶנָה, לְעֵינֵיהֶם. {ס}	12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.' {S}

Yechezkel {Ezekiel} protests that he does not want to become polluted, and so Hashem tells him, "OK, use bull dung instead."

יד וָאֹמַר, אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי ה, הִנֵּה נַפְשִׁי, לֹא מְטֻמָּאָה; וּנְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא-אָכַלְתִּי מִנְּעוּרַי וְעַד-עַתָּה, וְלֹא-בָא בְּפִי בְּשַׂר פִּגּוּל. {ס}	14 Then said I: 'Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted; for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn of beasts; neither came there abhorred flesh into my mouth.' {S}
טו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי--רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת-צפועי (צְפִיעֵי) הַבָּקָר, תַּחַת גֶּלְלֵי הָאָדָם; וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת-לַחְמְךָ, עֲלֵיהֶם. {}	15 Then He said unto me: 'See, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread thereon.' {S}

On the other hand, this particular cereal (Flax) depicted above is indeed a laxative, so it might have some appropriate connotations.

Also, this was not being depicted as ideal bread, just as it was not ideal to bake the bread over human or cow excrement. The idea was to convey a message about the coming famine, but otherwise they would not have eaten such a multi-grain bread. This is apparent from context, but we also have Rashi as well:

wheat and barley, etc., and millet and spelt paniz et epeltre in Old French, millet and spelt. A sign of the famine that will be upon them in the days of the siege, and they will eat a bread of mixed [grains] while nauseated.

It is possible they do not imagine most customers will be aware of the context. Many Jewish people I mentioned this to were unaware of this, but perhaps Christians are more aware, reading it in English. Or maybe not.

At any rate, heh.

Oh, and while I am at it, let me boost my Jewish blog aggregator, BluishJoggers.BlogSpot.com.

Another Possibility to the Lice and Peru Urevu Issue

which I linked to on Hirhurim a slight while back, and suggested a reading of the gemara.

Another two possibilities to consider:

1) Abaye mentioned lice eggs. One need not answer, as did the setama digmara, that this was another species called "lice eggs." Indeed, some species can reproduce via parthenogenesis yet still laying eggs - that is, they lay the fertile eggs without first engaging in peru urevu. Thus, a pasuk that refers to lice eggs, or a brayta that refers to lice eggs, not not imply that lice are "fruitful and multiply," that is, engage in sexual reproduction.

A case in point is the soil mite, which does exactly this -- lays eggs but this reproduction is asexual.

2) A second possibility is nishtaneh hatevah, such that if back then the assumption was asexual reproduction (well, it seems that the setama denies that lice eggs exist at all, and must therefore assume spontaneous generation, likely from sweat, with the lice eggs as living creatures perhaps coming from the lice or not, as Rabbi Slifkin suggested). But still, we can appeal somewhat to nishtaneh hateva, with once again the soil mite as an example. It used to reproduce asexually, but has just evolved once again to a state of sexual reproduction! This might also account for the machloket between Rav Yosef and Abaye - perhaps there was a similar shift in one direction or the other back then as well.

And of course there are the other suggestions, previously mentioned.

Another Gimmel Tammuz, Rebbe is Not Dead and is Mashiach Article

this time reposted on Aussie Echo.
Bleh.

Don't have time to comment, because I'm leaving on a jet plane.

Introducing Bluish Joggers

My Jewish blog aggregator. It is a work in progress, so the formatting needs a bit of work, and I still have to add a whole bunch of other blogs.

In the meantime, check it out.

Josh

BluishJoggers.blogspot.com

The Gerrer Rebbe's Curse, Or ... Not

Word is that the Gerrer Rebbe had cursed Shimon Peres that he would never win an election. According to Lazer Beams:

According to my source, who for years was a close confidant of the Rebbe, The "Lev Simcha" was tremendously upset that Israel had no anti-abortion law. He treasured the lives of unborn children, and bemoaned the cessation of life. In 1981, he did his utmost to persuade Knesset members of all backgrounds to support the proposed anti-abortion law. With the addition of four Labor MK's, the Lev Simcha had mustered a majority to pass the bill. "But", the Labor MK's warned the Rebbe, "we can only vote for the bill if Shimon Peres [then opposition leader in Knesset] allows us to vote our conscience." Peres gave the Rebbe his solemn promise, and the Rebbe gave Peres a gold watch in return. "This watch is witness of your word to me," said the Rebbe.

Peres broke his word to the Lev Simcha. When the vote came up in Knesset, he reneged on freedom of conscience and called for faction discipline, in other words, you vote with the faction or lose your career. The Anti-abortion law fell by a margin of two votes.

The Lev Simcha was devistated. "A ligner?! Ba mir, err is ge'endik!" "A liar - with me he's finished...he'll never win an election again!"

Although Peres became Prime Minister by default when Rabin was killed, he hasn't won an election since. He lost national elections to Begin, Shamir, and Netanyahu, the presidential election to Katzav, and his own Labor party election to Barak and now to Amir Peretz.

Yet Peres just was appointed President. Given, the other two candidates dropped out, but they did so because he was going to win. Is this a challenge to the Gerrer Rebbe's curse, or, as one commenter said, perhaps Peres did teshuvah, or some other type of apologetics like that?

The answer, to my mind, is that it is silly to believe that the Gerrer Rebbe cursed Peres, and that that was what caused him to lose these elections.

Look carefully at the story above, and it would seem that there is no curse -- just a misinterpretation by the mystical-minded to see a curse.

To excerpt from the article, this time to stress some important points:

In 1981, he did his utmost to persuade Knesset members of all backgrounds to support the proposed anti-abortion law. With the addition of four Labor MK's, the Lev Simcha had mustered a majority to pass the bill. "

Thus, the Lev Simcha, the Gerrer Rebbe, was very politically active. He spoke to Knesset members, and was able to muster a majority to pass a bill. He was able to extract a promise from Peres to let them vote their confidence, but Peres in the end did not honor his promise. Thus, the Gerrer Rebbe was a significant person on the political scene.

Then,

The Lev Simcha was devistated [sic]. "A ligner?! Ba mir, err is ge'endik!" "A liar - with me he's finished...he'll never win an election again!"

Assuming that the words "he'll never win an election again!" were actually said by him -- they are missing in the Yiddish, but that is likely enough to be a stylistic judgment -- this is not a curse. This is a statement by a politically savvy and involved leader of a community that, given this betrayal, he will no longer support Peres, and will try to see to it that Peres will never win an election again.

It is like the statement "You'll never work in this town again!"

Therefore, I would disagree with Rabbi Brody that there are

Three morals to the story: One, don't take a tzaddik's word lightly; two, it doesn't pay to lie, especially to a tzaddik; and three, the tzaddikim are still pulling the strings even though they're not with us in the flesh.

It is more important, in my opinion, to combat superstition and the tendency to draw conclusions one would like rather than what is true from personal events and world events.

As for the gold watch, I wonder if this political gift should be considered a bribe or not, and what Peres did with the gold watch. :)

hat tip: yaak

Shelach: The Tzitzit Mnemonic

Inspired to talk about this by a DovBear post. There is a Rashi which derives 613 from tzitzit, thus explaining how you will see it and remember all of Hashem's commandments.

The pasuk is in Bemidbar 15:

לט וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;

Rashi comments:

you will remember all the commandments of the Lord because the numerical value of the צִיצִית is six hundred. צ = 90 י = 10 צ = 90 י = 10 ת = 400 - =600 [Add to this the] eight threads and five knots, and we have [a total of] six hundred and thirteen [the number of commandments in the Torah]. - [Num. Rabbah 18:21]

It is indeed there in Bemidbar Rabba, among a whole bunch of other gematriot, though Bemidbar Rabba is a late midrash, possibly post-Rashi. Still, it also appears in Tanchuma, which is much earlier, with a difference that Bemidbar Rabba concludes with "five knots, two above {by the corner of the garment} and three below," while Tanchuma only has "five knots."

On the other hand, perhaps it is not really in Tanchuma. Immediately before the section which contains the statement in Tanchuma, we encounter the following statement:

מכאן ועד סוף הפרשה לא נמצא בילמדנו כתיבת יד כאשר העיד המדפיס דפוס מנטובה. אך בכל הדפוסים נמצא:

Thus it is not in the manuscript but is in all printings. See this Wikipedia page on Tanchuma for more information about Tanchuma in its various forms. Regardless, I would assume this is Rashi's source.

This is not explicitly on this pasuk of וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה, but Rashi applies the midrash as a commentary to these words. It is quite possible that אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה was what prompted the finding of exactly this gematria. On the other hand, it is quote possible not. Context in both cases is another 613 count involving yirat. Citing from Tanchuma:

יראת ה' היא אוצרו (ישע' לג ו). אין בכל המדות גדול מן היראה וענוה, שנאמר, ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך (דב' י יב). יראת בגימטריא שש מאות ואחת עשרה. ותורה ומילה עמה, הרי שש מאות ושלש עשרה. ציצית, שש מאות. שמונה חוטין וחמשה קשרים, הרי שש מאות ושלש עשרה.

Thus, we might just be trying to reach 613 in general, not based on a specific pasuk and a specific spelling. On the other hand, the greater section needs to tie in to this group of pesukim somehow, and tzitzit seems the best connection.

Ramban is troubled by the fact that tzitzit is mentioned chaser. Tur gives a cute, though I would assume to many, unconvincing, that tzitzit is written chaser yud three times in the parsha, but once -- indeed, in the very pasuk under discussion, it is written לְצִיצִת. Take the lamed and distribute it amongst the three, so that they get 10 each. This rounds out the 600.

We might add that many people hold that chirik chaser and chirik malei are pronounced differently, so this is not just a spelling issue. Dr. David Segal, a very medakdek baal koreh in KGH, claims that there is no distinction in pronunciation between chirik chaser and chirik malei -- and yet that there is a distinction in terms of sheva na after chirik maleh, but on the basis of the meteg. Thus, in a case of tzitzit, one might argue that they are in fact pronounced identically.

I will pile on with a further objection. It would seem, based on Menachot, that our tzitzit are wrong. That is, there are two statements. That the coils should be no less than three, and that the sets of coils should be no less than seven and no more than thirteen. Somehow, coils and sets of coils were confused. That is why standard Ashkenazic tzitzit have four sets of coils, with the first set having seven coils and the final one having seven. With five knots, there are four sets of coils. This does not match the requirement (/recommendation) to have at least seven sets of coils, which would consist of 8 knots. (Bemidbar Rabba has gerurin rather than chutin -- perhaps it is resolvable on that grounds.) On the other hand, Tanchuma is fairly early, so we would not assume this is a midrash in error. (Back to the first hand, just how early is this segment?) This requires more investigation. Note, BTW, according to the Bemidbar Rabba girsa which mentions 2 knots above {by the kanaf} and three below {with a gap between} seems not to accord with what we do anyway.

{Update: I would add that if we wished to construct a new gematria in line with this other way of tying, it is fairly straightforward to do so. tzitzit spelled malei is 600. Add the 13 sets of coils maximum, for 613.}

I would note that while chaser is the Biblical spelling, it quite often is spelled maleh yud by commentators and in Talmud. It occurs maleh in Talmud Yerushalmi 12 times, in Talmud Bavli 60 times. It is spelled maleh in Tanchuma as well.

If we divorce the statement from the pasuk Rashi applies it to, it is a perfectly legitimate derasha or gematria. They took a Rabbinic spelling -- the Rabbinic spelling for it -- and deduced a gematria for it, such that it added up to 613. Even if we do start from the pasuk, who is to say we must rely on the pasuk's archaic spelling convention for the gematria. Need we spell sotah with a sin rather than a samech? Or sukka as chaser vav?

What is Rashi doing? He applies it specifically here. But not always does a derasha begin where Rashi eventually applies it. Still, as argued above, it fits well in here.

Even if it was not intended as such, it is a good kiyum. The pasuk said

לט וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;

and this is a way of remembering, and specifically remembering all the commandments. Perhaps we could say that Rashi is aware of the midrash and cites it as a relevant midrash, and not as explanation of the intent of (or "peshat" in) the pasuk but as a way of fulfilling it. The gematria is a mnemonic, and if the mnemonic relies on Rabbinic, rather than Biblical spelling, then so be it -- that does not matter, because since the gematria exists, it serves to remind when one looks.

(Another way of reminding, without resorting to gematria, is to simply look at the tzitzit, and treat it like a string around your finger. It will work to remind you specifically of all the commandments of Hashem because the pasuk, which you saw, said that that was its function.)

One final point. DovBear suggested the possibility that this meant Rashi had a different girsa of Chumash, to have come up with this gematria. Since it comes from a source which Rashi is merely citing (Tanchuma), it would seem that Rashi himself need not have had this girsa, and perhaps was not troubled by Ramban's question, deeming it irrelevant. What about Tanchuma? Well, we would need to look at manuscripts to determine Tanchuma's girsa. But, much earlier but still on parshat Korach, Tanchuma does not cite this pasuk. It does cite the other two occurrences of tzitzit, though.

סימן ב
ויקח קרח. מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין, דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם ועשו להם ציצת (במ' טו לח). קפץ קרח ואמר למשה, אתה אומר, ונתנו על ציצית וגו' (שם).

Thus, in the previous pasuk, it seems that Tanchuma had at least one tzitzit spelled chaser. He spells the other in the pasuk as maleh, but I would dismiss that as a scribal error, not being careful in citing it. (Whereas leaving out the yud is irregular, given every other spelling in the commentary being maleh, such that a chaser would need to be consciously based on copying the text in Chumash. Perhaps some scribe corrected the original text back to the pasuk, but if so, why not consistently?)

Nit-Picking A Post On Hirhurim

Or perhaps not. It is an excellent guest-post by Rav Natan Slifkin about how the gemara could have been aware of nits, yet think lice spontaneously generate, yet call nits "eggs of lice." And it would seem to be true. Check it out there.

However, I think paying attention to the fact that certain segments are stammaic may also be helpful here. Shabbat 107b:

Shabbat 107a:
Mishna: AS FOR THE EIGHT REPTILES [SHERAZIM] WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE TORAH, HE WHO CATCHES OR WOUNDS THEM [ON THE SABBATH] IS CULPABLE; BUT [AS FOR] OTHER ABOMINATIONS AND CREEPING THINGS, HE WHO WOUNDS THEM IS EXEMPT; HE WHO CATCHES THEM, BECAUSE HE NEEDS THEM, HE IS LIABLE; IF HE DOES NOT NEED THEM, HE IS EXEMPT, AS FOR A BEAST OR BIRD IN ONE'S PRIVATE DOMAIN, HE WHO CATCHES IT IS EXEMPT; HE WHO WOUNDS IT IS CULPABLE.

107b:
Gemara: BUT OTHER ABOMINATIONS, etc. But if one kills them, he is culpable: which Tanna [holds thus]? Said R. Jeremiah, It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: He who kills vermin on the Sabbath is as though he killed a camel on the Sabbath. R. Joseph demurred to this: The Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only in respect to vermin, which does not multiply and increase, but as for other abominations and creeping things, which multiply and increase, they do not differ [therein]. And both learn it from none but the rams. R. Eliezer holds, It is as the rams: just as there was the taking of life in the case of the rams, so whatever constitutes the taking of life [is a culpable offence]. While the Rabbis argue, It is as the rams: just as rams multiply and increase, so are all which multiply and increase [of account]. Said Abaye to him, Do not vermin multiply and increase? But a Master said: 'The Holy One, blessed be He, sits and sustains [all creatures], from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of vermin'? — It is a species called 'eggs of vermin'. But it was taught: Tippuyyi and the eggs of vermin? — The species is called 'eggs of vermin'. But there is the flea, which multiplies and increases, yet it was taught, If one catches a flea on the Sabbath: R. Eliezer declares him liable, while R. Joshua exempts [him]? — Said R. Ashi: You oppose catching to killing! R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree only in that one Master holds: If the species is not hunted, one is liable; whilst the other Master holds: He is exempt. But in respect to killing even R. Joshua agrees.

ושאר שקצים כו': הא הורגן חייב
מאן תנא א"ר ירמיה ר"א היא דתניא ר"א אומר ההורג כינה בשבת כהורג גמל בשבת
מתקיף לה רב יוסף עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בכינה דאינה פרה ורבה אבל שאר שקצים ורמשים דפרין ורבין לא פליגי ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מאילים רבי אליעזר סבר כאילים מה אילים שיש בהן נטילת נשמה אף כל שיש בו נטילת נשמה ורבנן סברי כאילים מה אילים דפרין ורבין אף כל דפרה ורבה
א"ל אביי וכינה אין פרה ורבה והאמר מר יושב הקב"ה וזן מקרני ראמים ועד ביצי כינים
מינא הוא דמיקרי ביצי כינים
והתניא טפויי וביצי כינים מינא הוא דמיקרי ביצי כינים
והרי פרעוש דפרה ורבה ותניא הצד פרעוש בשבת רבי אליעזר מחייב ורבי יהושע פוטר
אמר רב אשי צידה אהריגה קרמית עד כאן לא פליגי רבי אליעזר ור' יהושע אלא דמר סבר דבר שאין במינו ניצוד חייב ומר סבר פטור אבל לענין הריגה אפילו רבי יהושע מודה:

I would argue that, as per the usual style, after Abaye's objection, the following give and take is not Rav Yosef and Abaye, but rather simple the setama digmara going systematically through sources. And Rav Yosef might well have not replied this.

If so, Abaye's objection still stands.

Since Rav Ashi appears to explain the dispute in line with Rav Yosef, the setama has to explain how Rav Yosef would respond to this objection. (And would then rely on contemporary scientific sources, such as this opinion of Aristotle about nits.)

Perhaps one can cast Rav Ashi's statement otherwise -- if one claims that his statement was initially shorter, but worked into the discussion. That is, say that Rav Ashi he offers an alternative to Rav Yosef's distinction of spontaneous generation vs. being fruitful and multiplying. Say instead that this dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages is about whether there tzeida, catching, is common for this species. After all, in the 39 melachot, shechita follows tzeida, and one might read one as a continuation of the other. Thus, Rabbi Eliezer holds they are disjoint and so one can be liable for killing a species which is not caught, while Rabbi Yehoshua, and (perhaps =) the Sages hold that one can only be liable for killing a species which is caught.

The straps on my tefillin shel yad broke

the other day. My retzuot are somewhat old and worn, and I bent my middle finger. Snap!

I ended up going to Safra's, which is local to Kew Gardens Hills, and they repaired it for me same-day. When I got there at around 7:30 they told me it hadn't been done yet, but they sent it to expert in the back who handled it. Decent price, as well. $25 for regular, $35 for "asiyas yad." The difference between them? $10. Also, the fellow tying it says "leshem mitzvas tefillin" while tying it.

This got me thinking about retzuot, and I came up with the following somewhat homiletic thought: The retzuot, the straps, are like the reins on a horse, harnessing and directing man's energy -- in this case, his heart and mind -- towards worship of his Creator.

Interestingly, looking on morfix, the entry for "reins" was

מוֹשְׁכָה, מוֹסֵרָה; מוֹסְרוֹת הַשִּׁלְטוֹן, רֶסֶן הַשִּׁלְטוֹן

meanwhile, the entry for "reigns" was
שִׁלְטוֹן

I would imagine that resen hashilton, "the reins of rulership," gets the shilton component from the homonym. The two words do not seem to be etymologically related. To cite answers.com, which cites American Heritage Dictionary, "reign" comes from

[Middle English reigne, from Old French, from Latin rēgnum, from rēx, rēg-, king.]

while "rein" has a different etymology:

[Middle English, from Old French resne, reine, from Vulgar Latin *retina, from Latin retinēre, to retain. See retain.]

While waiting at Safra's, I saw a fancy piece of Judaica with the text for hafrashat challah. But in the word hafrashat, in the title and in the body of the text, there was a dagesh in the shin following the kametz. Not that it matters, of course, but if you are already buying a fancy piece of Judaica, it might as well be without glaring errors.

Shelach: The Meraglim Didn't Lie

There are different possible perspectives on the sin of the spies. Were they bad from the get-go? Or only later? Or never? Rashi bases himself primarily on Sotah daf 35, citing different statements as it fits into his commentary.

They went, and they came What is meant by“They went”? [It says already that they returned.] To compare their going with their coming. Just as their return was with evil intent, so was their departure [on the journey] with evil intent. — [Sotah 35a]

This is a citation of Rabbi Yochanan citing Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Thus, they initially intended towards bad.

flowing with milk and honey Any lie in which a little truth is not stated in the beginning cannot be maintained in the end. — [Sotah 35a]

The quote is actually slightly modified from our girsa in Sotah, either because Rashi had a different girsa or because he modified it. The distinction is that our gemara says "any slander," leshon hara, while Rashi says sheker, lie. This, by the way, is Rabbi Yochanan citing Rabbi Meir.

This brings up an interesting point. Were they lying? Did they intend to lie? Did they intend harm?

The Amalekites dwell Since they had already been“burnt” by Amalek [as it were,] the spies mentioned it in order to frighten them. — [Mid. Tanchuma 9]

Thus Rashi cited a Midrash Tanchuma to show they were calculating in the details they chose to mention, in order to frighten the people.

for they are stronger than we Heb. מִמֶּנּוּ, [which may also be interpreted as, they are stronger than he.] They said this in reference to the most High, as it were, [as if to say that the people are stronger than He. — [Sotah 35a]

Thus the spies deny Hashem's strength and power to let them prevail.

consumes its inhabitants Wherever we passed, we found them burying dead. The Holy One, blessed is He, intended this for good, to keep them occupied with their mourning so they should not notice them [the spies]. — [Sotah 35a]

This statement of Rava implies that they were not lying. What they said was true. Did the spies realize that this was why Hashem did this? Possibly not.

the giants Heb. נְפִילִים, giants, descended from Shamhazai (Nidah 61a) and Azael (Yoma 67b), who fell (שֶׁנָּפְלוּ)) from heaven in the generation of Enosh.
and so we were in their eyes We heard them telling each other,“There are ants in the vineyard who look like people.” - [Sotah 35a]

By identifying these giants, Rashi would agree that this is factual -- there were giants. By explaining that they indeed heard this, he is stating that they are not lying.

In fact, it is a matter of dispute (or rather statement followed by rejection) in the gemara in Sotah:

"And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." R. Mesharsheya said: The spies were liars. As regards 'we were in our own sight as grasshoppers', very well; but how could they know that 'so we were in their sight'? But it is not so; for when [the inhabitants] held their funeral-meal they ate it beneath cedar trees, and when [the spies] saw them they climbed the trees and sat there. Then they heard them say: 'We see men like grasshoppers in the trees'.

Thus, at least in this matter, Rashi is in agreement that they were not liars. Note that in fact the gemara presents this as a rejection, based on another source. In fact Rav Mesharshia may have known this source and chosen to argue against it. Regardless, Rashi adopts the rejection, in order to present a basis (midrashic) for each portion of the statements of the spies.

If so, the word slander, leshon hara, might be better suited than sheker, falsehood.

Now, while Rashi presents the gemara's various statements (and that of Midrash Tanchuma) as a whole, in fact one might split Chazal's statements into different groups.

We might argue the position that the spies actually set out whole-heartedly on their mission, but were discouraged by what they saw. The prime source for this is

לא וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-עָלוּ עִמּוֹ, אָמְרוּ, לֹא נוּכַל, לַעֲלוֹת אֶל-הָעָם: כִּי-חָזָק הוּא, מִמֶּנּוּ.

31 But the men that went up with him said: 'We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.'

The derasha above was that מִמֶּנּוּ means "Him," meaning Hashem, rather than "us." This is not a matter of derash, however. This is absolutely peshat in the pasuk. What they saw when spying out the land disheartened them. It was indeed true that it was highly unlikely that they would succeed against such a formidable foe. Thus, they said "they are stronger than we." But they forgot that Hashem was directing the events, and promised their victory, even against these seemingly insurmountable odds.

This is the theme that this midrash is hooking into. By saying "they are stronger than we," the implied that "they are stronger than He." Thus, this midrash is peshat.

This is also part of the message of the midrash about the land consuming those upon it. On a peshat level, the spies meant that it was a harsh land that would require a hardy people to prosper on it. But here, the midrash gives an explanation of something which they saw which appeared to be bad and formidable, but was actually God's hidden hand ensuring the success of their mission.

The bit about "so we appeared in their eyes" may also be taken to show their lack of confidence. As Rav Mesharshia said, how would they know how the inhabitants saw them? One answer is that they were making this up. Another answer is that they were projecting their lack of confidence, such that they felt the enemy must also regard them as insignificant.

Indeed, in the next perek, they try attacking without Hashem's help, and are beaten back, with casualties:

מ וַיַּשְׁכִּמוּ בַבֹּקֶר, וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶל-רֹאשׁ-הָהָר לֵאמֹר: הִנֶּנּוּ, וְעָלִינוּ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אָמַר יְהוָה--כִּי חָטָאנוּ.	40 And they rose up early in the morning, and got them up to the top of the mountain, saying: 'Lo, we are here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised; for we have sinned.'
מא וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לָמָּה זֶּה אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת-פִּי יְהוָה; וְהִוא, לֹא תִצְלָח.	41 And Moses said: 'Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD, seeing it shall not prosper?
מב אַל-תַּעֲלוּ, כִּי אֵין יְהוָה בְּקִרְבְּכֶם; וְלֹא, תִּנָּגְפוּ, לִפְנֵי, אֹיְבֵיכֶם.	42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten down before your enemies.
מג כִּי הָעֲמָלֵקִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי שָׁם לִפְנֵיכֶם, וּנְפַלְתֶּם בֶּחָרֶב: כִּי-עַל-כֵּן שַׁבְתֶּם מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה, וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה יְהוָה עִמָּכֶם.	43 For there the Amalekite and the Canaanite are before you, and ye shall fall by the sword; forasmuch as ye are turned back from following the LORD, and the LORD will not be with you.'
מד וַיַּעְפִּלוּ, לַעֲלוֹת אֶל-רֹאשׁ הָהָר; וַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית-יְהוָה וּמֹשֶׁה, לֹא-מָשׁוּ מִקֶּרֶב הַמַּחֲנֶה.	44 But they presumed to go up to the top of the mountain; nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp.
מה וַיֵּרֶד הָעֲמָלֵקִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּהָר הַהוּא; וַיַּכּוּם וַיַּכְּתוּם, עַד-הַחָרְמָה. {פ}	45 Then the Amalekite and the Canaanite, who dwelt in that hill-country, came down, and smote them and beat them down, even unto Hormah.

Thus, the spies were not lying, but just were plagued by the same doubts that spread to the people.

Indeed, this is what the gemara seems to say about Calev's response:

ל וַיַּהַס כָּלֵב אֶת-הָעָם, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר, עָלֹה נַעֲלֶה וְיָרַשְׁנוּ אֹתָהּ--כִּי-יָכוֹל נוּכַל, לָהּ.	30 And Caleb stilled the people toward Moses, and said: 'We should go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.'
לא וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-עָלוּ עִמּוֹ, אָמְרוּ, לֹא נוּכַל, לַעֲלוֹת אֶל-הָעָם: כִּי-חָזָק הוּא, מִמֶּנּוּ.	31 But the men that went up with him said: 'We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.'

The gemara in Sotah elaborates:

And Caleb stilled [wa-yahas] the people concerning Moses — Rabbah said, [It means] that he won them over [hissithan] with words. When Joshua began to address them, they said to him, 'Would this person with the lopped-off head speak to us!' [Caleb] said [to himself], If I address them [in the same strain as Joshua], they will answer me in like manner and silence me; so he said to them, 'Is it this alone that Amram's son has done to us!' They thought that he was speaking to censure Moses, so they were silent. Then he said to them, 'He brought us out of Egypt, divided the Red Sea for us and fed us with manna. If he were to tell us, Prepare ladders and ascend to heaven, should we not obey him! Let us go up at once and possess it etc.'

But the men that went up with him said: We will not be able etc. R. Hanina b. Papa said: A grievous statement did they make at that moment, viz. For they are stronger than we — read not than we but than He; as it were even the master of the house cannot remove his furniture from there.

According to Rabba's statement, Calev in fact was mentioning all the great things Moshe had accomplished at Hashem's direction, with the aid of miracles. And Rav Chanina bar Pappa's statement might be cast as continuing along these lines -- the spies' retort to Calev's claim.

While I'm at commenting on Shelach, one might suggest:

ג וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה מִמִּדְבַּר פָּארָן, עַל-פִּי יְהוָה: כֻּלָּם אֲנָשִׁים, רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה.	3 And Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran according to the commandment of the LORD; all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel.
ד וְאֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹתָם: לְמַטֵּה רְאוּבֵן, שַׁמּוּעַ בֶּן-זַכּוּר.	4 And these were their names: of the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur.

ח לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם, הוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן.	8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun.

טז אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לָתוּר אֶת-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.	16 These are the names of the men that Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua.

One might suggest that the Israelites kept megillat yuchsin, genealogical books, as well as a record of what was happening, who was sent, who were the leaders of each tribe, etc.

And then, the Torah will cite these other genealogical documents. To remain true to them, nothing will be changed, even if there is potential for confusion -- such as a Reuel/Deuel, either resolvable as a name change or variant, or allowing for an error in this historical document. Moshe will quote the sources verbatim as they are. However, to smooth the confusion here in the shift between the genealogical list and the narrative, Moshe (or Yehoshua...) clarifies that Nun did not have another son who interceded. (Indeed, sometimes Biblical characters name sons quite similar names.) And this might also be part of the cause for the reminder that Calev and Yehoshua were among the spies, in the next perek:

ו וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, וְכָלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה, מִן-הַתָּרִים, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ--קָרְעוּ, בִּגְדֵיהֶם.	6 And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were of them that spied out the land, rent their clothes.
ז וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ--טוֹבָה הָאָרֶץ, מְאֹד מְאֹד.	7 And they spoke unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying: 'The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceeding good land.

I'm Visiting Israel Next Week

for a week. So blogging may well be much lighter than usual. So far, I at least have what to do on Wednesday -- I'm attending the Israel Seminar on Computational Linguistics at Bar Ilan.

I also want to visit Tel Dan while there.

Otherwise, I am not sure what to do while there. Any suggestions?

I've been having internet connection issues all week

Thus the nonexistent posting. I think I need better filters, or a better Internet Service Provider.

I checked out Aroma Net Cafe, in KGH, but didn't stay. They offer metered Internet Access (and in fact metered computer usage, which includes Microsoft Office) for $7.50 for one hour (less per hour for two and three hours.) It is an upscale cafe, with coffee and muffins, etc., and a bunch of computers lining the walls. Perhaps useful in a pinch for Internet access, but I doubt many will use it, having home internet in KGH, or being able to use the library's internet access for free. There is still the cafe aspect of it, of course.

I just got the latest value-added spam from Aish. I typically don't mind it, usually just deleting it. But if they are a kiruv site, they should consider what sites are advertising with them, and that carrying an ad implies endorsement of the product. This one was for kabbalah bracelets and the like. Unless they did give it thought -- I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did not.

To cite:
As our subscriber, we would like to give you the first chance to see our new line of beautiful Sterling Silver Kabbalah jewelry. These absolutely gorgeous pieces are suitable for men and women, and for any occasion. With verses promoting love, health, wealth, safety, and more, we are sure that you will find the perfect one to be a treasured gift for a lifetime.

Silver Kabbalah Bracelet - Wealth Retail Price: $95.00 Sale Price: $69.95

Finally, an interesting post, and comments, on Hirhurim about a review of Dr. Tamar Ross' book, and her response. Slightly related, my feelings are that feminist approaches to halacha make as much sense as feminist approaches to linear algebra. (This is admittedly nonobvious.) Then again, see the Sokal Affair. :)

P3: What Feature of parshat Behaalotecha am I?

Slits in Women's Skirts

A few days ago, on Emes veEmuna, there was a post about the Mishmar haTorah Bet Din, set up to give "kashrut approval" to clothes in Israel. This prompted a protracted discussion in the comment section (presently 518 comments), and I lurked, as I often do.

I recall reading about this a while back, and recall noting how the proponents, back then at least, were mainly educators in girl's schools. I couldn't help but think that Bet Yaakov and the like infantilizes their charges, assuming they cannot make their own decisions as appropriate (thus the move in some towards dress codes), and this is a continuation of the infantilization, such that even after they graduate they assume that their charges require this type of direction. Of course, from their perspective, it is not this.

In the comments, they noted how various Israeli gedolim set up this committee to propose suggestions, and this was the result. Over the course of the lengthy comment thread, someone brought up the issue of slits on women's skirts, and someone wrote:

Even if they were made to show the leg, if the slit is below the knee there is no problem especially if the woman is wearing stockings. It is no different than a shorter skirt would be.

Ed then replied (eventually):

Totaly neged Daas Torah.

In 5748, R' SZ Auerbach, R' Elyashiv, R' Ben-Zion Abba Shaul, R S Wosner, R' Nissim Karelitz amongst others all signed a declaration stating:

"A slit in a garment is FORBIDDEN because of Pritzus. It is forbidden even if thick tights are being worn. It is forbidden even if the complete slit is below the knee".

R' Schneur Kotler and R N Wachtfogel signed a similar statement in 5742.

There was a tangent whether such a proclamation required explanation, since it seemed to be against what would seem to be the straightforward halacha. (Note: I have not learned these halachot, or sources, in great detail, and am also summarizing a lot of this from memory.)

The suggestion was brought that this was a geder, and the suggestion was brought that this was because as the woman walks, the leg (or stocking) is being exposed and concealed, which draws the eye. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

The discussion also encompassed the issue of whether these gedolim who made the declaration about slits in skirts consulted with people in the fashion/garment industry. This was dismissed. Why should they? They could recognize "pritzus" in the streets where they see it. But then some suggested that perhaps they did, or asked their wives (some countered that they were elderly widowers). Then, someone said it is disrespect to the gedolei haDor to suggest that they wasted their time speaking to shmatta vendors.

I don't think such would be disrespect to suggest, where at issue is finding out of metziut in order to render correct pesak. Rava {IIRC} spent years learning about the eye ailments of sheep in order to be mattir bechorot correctly. The famous story of the acharon who asked the milk merchant how much he watered down his milk, in order to be mattir chalav that fell into a maachal of basar where there was hefsed meruba. There is no shame, or waste of time, to find out about the world. (Indeed, this is an ideal of Torah UMadda as I try to practice it. When learning about tereifot and about beitzim, I took out science books in order to understand the metziut, and books on the history of medicine and science, to try to ascertain the state of science at the time of Chazal at different times.)

In this case, I do not think that, in terms of slits in skirts, it was just a matter of going out and noticing that something was pritzus, but rather I think that this is something that requires consultation with experts in the field or how women's clothing is constructed. And it is quite possible that they failed to do this consultation in this instance. (It is also possible that they did.)

(Caveat: I am no expert on women's -- or even men's -- fashion.)

The thing about slits in skirts is that there are two ways of viewing their function. One is as an attempt to expose flesh, and ervah, such that a slit is pritzus. The other is as a necessary feature of a straight skirt in order to allow a woman to walk without being forced to take baby steps or hobble about. For a man, who does not have to wear skirts (and in fact should not), the second way of viewing their function is not obvious.

And there is a clothing feature called "peek-a-boo." A peek-a-boo slit is a very high slit which exposes the thigh. Similarly, peak-a-boo blouses apparently have strips of translucent material, showing some of the flesh below. And peek-a-boo tops have a patch cut out below the collar (?) in order to expose cleavage.

Looking at the proclamation above, it seems to me quite possible that when they heard of slits, they thought of the peek-a-boo function. Thus, they say "A slit in a garment is FORBIDDEN because of Pritzus." They do not say that it is forbidden because of erva, but rather because of pritzus. This suggests that they are considering is as a feature of a garment deliberately designed to expose flesh.

If so, what if the woman wears thick stockings underneath? Even so, it is wearing a garment with a feature of pritzus, and she is buying into this pritzus in the name of fashion, so it is inappropriate and forbidden. Thus, "It is forbidden even if thick tights are being worn. It is forbidden even if the complete slit is below the knee." Because they are wearing a garment with a feature designed to entice men in public in a sexual way, and this is pritzus.

On the other hand, while a really high slit might be designed with this partially in mind, in general, the purpose of a slit which does not go so high is to allow for movement in a straight skirt. The more of a slit, the greater the stride that is possible.

It is quite possible that those who brought this issue to these gedolim did not know, or mention, this fact. And it is quite possible that they did not realize that the slit was functional rather than pritzus. And it is quite possible that they did not realize that the repercussion was to effectively cripple women, not letting them walk normally in their straight skirts.

It is also possible that they knew this full well. But it seems that this possibility was not being conveyed, or rather, not being understood, by people in that discussion thread.
a