avakesh

Apology from Google: Jew is an offensive search word

An explanation of our search results

If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

• http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

P.S. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.

More

Avos 2:1, 3 The role of Mitzvos in choosing a derech

We explained that in the period after the destruction of the Temple, the Rabbis understood that individualism has become an important religious motive and that in the new era Judaism needed to be founded on the needs of the individual as well as those of the community.

Rabbi Judah HaNassi would say: Which is the right path for man to choose for himself? That which is beautiful for anyone who does it and the one that is (integrally) from within the person.

However, a question arises. ..

When we look around us there are so many different paths and each one claims large numbers of adherents. If we say that any path that appeals to one's inner desires and feels right is the correct path, have we given up on any objective criteria? Granted that a person cannot forge a competely individual path, but is the alternative choosing an established path solely on the grounds of its appeal? The Sages were fully aware of the many false reasons why a certain path might feel "right", reasons that the seeker discovers with time to be founded on unconscious and immature psychological needs or plain error. What then might be an objective criterion with which to evaluate a spiritual path?

A seeker sees around him a varied and multifaceted religious scene - liberal Orthodoxy, synthesis, Modern Orthodoxy, Chardal, Mussarnik and non-Mussar yeshivish, and Chassidic groups according to their kinds. Each one says: "I am true and only one - come hither". So which are ligitimate and how can one know?

 Rebbi says: "Mitzva observance!". Seek out and understand what a group considers a primary religious value. If it is keeping Hashem's Torah and commandments, then it is a legitimate path and you will not lose by adopting it. If not, remember that Judaism is at the most basic and essential level about keeping the mitzvos.

Be as careful with a minor mitzvah as with a major one, for you do not know the rewards of the mitzvot. 

In other words, whatever path you choose, do not forget the mitzvos.

Does this mean that Mitva observance is the only value? No, not at all. It is indispensable but it need not be the only element of a derech.

Now, Rebbi says something which partially contradicts his prior statement.

Consider the cost of a mitzvah against its rewards, and the rewards of a transgression against its cost.

How can one consider the reward of a mitsva when he just told us that  that "you do not know the rewards of the mitzvos"?

This question leads commentaries into a variety of approaches. Rambam, for example, says that even though we do not know what the exact reward is of each commandment, we can often approximately estimate it by looking at the related or opposite sin. One is ommanded to remove chometz on Pesach and we do not know what the reward of this positive commandment might be. However, when we look at the sin of keeping chometz in the house or the severe punishment of  eating it on Pesach, we can gain some insight into the relative "value" of the positive commendment of "biur chometz".

I like the comments of Tiferes Yisroel, who explains that we do not, of course,  know the actual reward for any particular commandment. However, as individuals we do know what each mitzva does to uplift, elevate and develop us, and this may work differently for different people. In this fashion, the individual orientation returns.

Yes, the different religious paths stress different approaches and different mitzvos. We should join the group whose spirit speaks to our hearts but that does not de-emphasize mitzva observance. With that in mind, it is also legitimate for us to seek out paths or philosophies that stress those mitzvos that uplift us as particular indviduals and lead us in the path that is "beautiful" and rewarding specifically to us.

Chumras and Pesach

Why is even a tiny piece of Chametz forbidden on Pesach? Radvaz (Rabbi David ben Zimra, 1479-1573) askes this question in She'elot uTeshuvot Radvaz, 3:546 (977). After finding that there is no other halacha that makes quite such  stringent demands, he concludes that this is because chametz symbolizes the yetzer hara (evil inclination). One place where this idea is expressed is in Brochos 17a, where it says that when Rabbi Alexandari finished saying the amidah, he would add a tefillah: "Master of the Universe, You know full well that it is our desire to act according to Your will; but what prevents us from doing so? The se’or in the dough..." This also the reason why we expend such a tremendous effort seeking out and clearing away chametz before Pesach. I can say that this thought helped me tremendously, for it makes what is otherwise a dreary and difficult task into an inspiration. The message is that there is zero tolerance for the yetzer hara.

However, there is a problem. In his sefer about the reasons for mitzvos, Radvaz raises the following objection: If chametz represents the yetzer hara, why then is it allowed the rest of the year? He presents two answers:

 

The first answer is that matzah is hard on the stomach! According to the Radvaz, it would indeed be preferable spiritually to eat matzah and ban chametz all year round, but that is not practical. For this reason, Torah limits the war on chametz to one week a year. He likens it to Yehoshua’s circling of the walls of Yericho for seven days.

 

The second answer of the Radvaz is that the reason that Hashem gave us the yetzer hara is to test us to see if we can withstand it. After all, the world needs the yetzer hara. If not for its life force, everything would come to a grinding halt. The Gemara recounts that the rabbis once prayed that the yetzer hara for women be removed. Hashem granted their request -- but hens would not produce eggs(Yoma 69b). This is why chametz is permitted all year-round -- as a test to see if we can overcome our yetzer hara.

This also relates to the concept that all chumros are permitted on Pesach. A common Chabad teaching is that "Pesach is Andersht", that is, that all kinds of chumros, with or without a clear source, are laudable on Pesach. The  Mei HaShiloach quotes Reb Bunim MiParshischa who said that all the stringencies that the Jewish People adopt on Pesach are adornments to holiness, and this is alluded to in the verse that states (Shir HaShirim 1:!0) tzavareich bacharuzim, your neck with necklaces. This means that every limb of a person’s body has a corresponding ornament or garment, whereas the neck can be adorned with an ornament that is not unique to the neck. A precious stone is not designed to clothe someone. Rather, it is intended to be suspended from a person’s neck. Similarly, the stringencies that have been adopted by the Jewish People on Pesach is due to the fact that the neck is the vehicle through which the food enters, and it is specifically regarding food matters that all the stringencies on Pesach apply.

Here is how I understand this concept. Generally, a chumra is praiseworthy thing and an expression of loving G-d, except that a person should not take on stringencies that are far above his or her current level of observance. Doing so exposes his other deficiencies and represents  Kefitsas Hamadreigos which is not the right way in serving Hashem. However on Pesach even chumros that are far above the observance level are fully legitimate. Pesach is the time of mortal combat with Yetser Hara and in a fight to the last, any weapon is acceptable. It is no dishonor to a warrior in the midst of the battle to slay his enemy with a tree trunk, should a sword not be available. Similalry, Pesach is a "time-out" during which the usual cosiderations in Derech Hoavoda do not apply. 

Mesilar Yesharim writes in Ch. 18:

We notice at all periods and at all times, between all lovers and friends - between a man and his wife, between a father and his son, in fine, between all those who are bound with a love which is truly strong -that the lover will not say, "I have not been commanded further. What I have been told to do explicitly is enough for me." He will rather attempt, by analyzing the commands, to arrive at the intention of the commander and to do what he judges will give him pleasure. The same holds true for one who strongly loves his Creator; for he, too, is one of the class of lovers. The mitzvoth, whose behests are clear and widely known, will serve as an indication to him of the will and desire of the Blessed One. He will not say, "What has been explicitly stated is enough for me," or "In any event I will discharge my obligations by doing what is incumbent upon me." To the contrary, he will say, "Since I have seen that God's desire inclines towards this, I will use it as a sign to do as much as I can in relation to it and to extend it into as many areas as I can envisage the Blessed One's desiring its being extended into." Such a man may be called "one who gives pleasure to his Creator."

 

For a different perspective, at least in the public sphere, see here and here (From Sichos Haran). Also an argument that even on Pesach chumros must be examined for reasonableness and source.

 

Self expression in Avodas Hashem: Chometz and salt

A recent post in Avos discussed the tension within Judaism between a personal, individual path to Hashem and the path which is recommended to all. The best way is to follow both paths simultaneously.

I recently came across an early Avakesh post that expressed something important and true.

"On the one hand we are told that any minchah, or meal offering, may not include leaven or honey (Vayikra 2:11). This pasuk implies that the basic ingredients of flour and oil must remain free from anything extra.

And yet, just two pesukim later we are told “ba’melach timlach,” that all menachos should be salted (2:13). In fact, the verse continues and further commands us that all sacrifices must include the addition of salt.

The question is two-fold: Why may we not add leaven or honey to the korban? And if we are commanded not to add ingredients, why must we add salt?

A number of classical meforshim offer symbolic explanations for the problem with leaven and honey, but most of these explanations don’t address the positive contribution of salt.

R. Mordechai Gifter (Pirkei Torah), offers a beautiful explanation to both rules.

The problem with honey and leaven is that they are additives. They improve the taste or consistency of food by changing it. The external nature of the change they induce is the source of their prohibition.

Salt, on the other hand, preserves and enhances the natural flavor of food and this is the reason that we add it to korbanos.

R. Gifter goes on to explain that these twin halachos do not merely govern what ingredients can be added to a sacrifice, but – more profoundly – serve as a model for spiritual expression and aspiration.

Symbolically, we are being taught that our service of and relationship with God shouldn’t be artificial mimicry of others, but a natural expression of our true inner selves. [For a similar idea, see the comments of the Sfas Emes, on the phrase (Vayikra 1:2) “adam ki yakriv mi’kem.”]

Kuba jews

History

Va’ad L’Hatzolas Nidchei Yisroel activities

I hesitate to mention this, but as an issue of fact, it should be easily verifiable, and it should be verified. Is it true that Kuba Jews are accustomed to follow the Moslem procedure for divorce, that is, that a man can divorce his wife simply by saying three times, " I divorce thee"? Does anyone know if this is true and if there are any teshuvos on the matter?  

Leaving your own Egypt by Chaim Gershon

 Avodas HaKodesh asks, "If the Torah existed 2000 years before the world was created, how could it assume that the Jews were going to have to experience the future exile in Egypt?" The Shalo gives an answer which Tsemach Tsedek elaborates. The answer is that the creation of our  world was itself through the process of contraction (known as tzimtzum) so that our entire existence is an exile into an Egypt.The Hebrew for Egypt, Mitzrayim, is related to the term meitzar, which refers to boundaries and limitations (Torah Or, Va'eira 57b ff, Beshalach 64a-b; Yisro 71c). That each person must see oneself each year as being redeemed from Egypt means that one must experience a growth spurt out from limitations of daily life that prevent one from thinking and feeling creatively. R. Meir ibn Gabbai who wrote the Avodas HaKodesh himself departed from Spain and its Inquisition to write his sefarim.

 

The Haggadah states "'In the beginning our fathers served idols". This means that on a personal level, last year we can be reckoned as idol worshippers relative to what we can accomplish in serving HaShem this upcoming year. This year there is a Shabbos Chol HaMoed Pesach on which we recite the Haftorah of the "Valley of Dry Bones" (Yechezkal Chapter 37). This has been related on a personal level to being resurrected from a state of spiritual death  to serving HaShem with new energy (also see Shem Mishmuel / Avnei Nezer, Yesod HaAvodah [Slonim], Ishbitz, and others). One need not wait for the final redemption to be redeemed; this Pesach, as every Pesach, one can expand one's own horizons and get out of one's box!    

 

Churva rebuilt

Related...

Vos iz dos?

Richard McBee

Elisha:

Richard McBee is an interesting artist. I am intrigued by his use of chassidic and rabbinic clothing in portraying Biblical personalities. That has an immediate and visceral effect, which is one service that Art can render to Religion.

New magazine: Zman

Print media is dying. Newspapers and magazines, long a mainstay of the entertainement and news industry, are failing, closing doors and dissapearing, while their internet based publications, blogs and  social networking sites attract ever increasing numbers of patrons.

Everywhere except the Chareidi world! This segments of the public, to a great extent bereft of on-line access, welcomes entertaining and informative publications, which express its worldview and its lifestyle. WIth the exception of the recent closing of the Jewish Observer, an intensely ideological publication from an era that is now gone, it seems like frum journalism can do no wrong. New publications in English and in Yiddish appear at an inceasing rate and it seems like all of them succeed. In the New York area you can now obtain Bina, Yated Neman, Hamodia, with its weekly magazine, and a variety of local, neighborhood focused, ad-driven publications. As the chareidi reading public rapidly expands, it is increasingly supporting a new brand of Jewish journalism as well as a new format for identifying and expressing itself on social issues.

The standard was set by Mishpacha. Immensely successful, it has defined the standard to which the new entrants look. There must be a mixture of Torah reflections, nothing too technical and, if  is entertaining, that much the better. It must be inspiring, upbeat, and positive and not question or criticize too much. At the same time, forays into hitherto closed topics are encouraged but carefully managed. There is an obligatory focus on an individual and a personal story, accompanied by a feature on some Jewish community and a report about some exotic destination or locale, with a Jewish angle. This has proven to be a highly successful formula. Without an exacting Vaad, Mishpacha can push the envelope, remain non-ideological and attract readers from various sectors.

Two recent new publication hit the stores in the past several weeks, Zman: In Depth Coverage, Stimulating Stories for the Jewish Family, and Sha'ah Tovah: Timely Reading for the JJewish World. The latter is clearly designed after Mishapacha. It comes in three sections: the main journal, the women's section and a young reader's magazine, as well as topical sections. I hope to review Bsha'ah Tovah after Pesach. Now a few words about Zman.

Zman appears to have made a considered decision to look differently than Mishpacha. It is a thicker, smaller magazine, which provides more articles in each issue and it is a single magazine for the entire public. It is edited by Yaakov Astor, a noted writer and author  and incorporates columns and features. It seems to focus on the English speaking, Litvishe crowd, with a Perspective column by R. Pesach Krohn, Rabbi Berel Wein and Q&A from R. Avigdor Miller.

All beginnings are difficult! Zman attemtps to cover a variety of topics, but the basis on which it selects topics is not self-evident. It presents a feature entitled, "Who murdered the Jewish millionaire Edmond Safra", a topic recently covered by Mishpacha but reaches an opposite and, I would say, surprising and a maverick conclusion. There is a feature on the Prisoners in Japan, written by a correspondent who actually went there. It is in my eyes the strongest feature in the issue.There is a story with a curious title. "When Nazis become the victims", something about the need to curb the lavish lifestyle of the President of the United States and a short report on Gerald Rattner, the man who lost his fortune by publicly saying that the jewelry that he sold was "garbage". I expect that the future issues will tighten the focus and select more inter-compatible topics that, in one way or another, would present a theme and provide a familiar experience to a steady reader. It is important for a journal to be a brand and the first few issues will establish to what extent Zman will be perceived as a brand, as Mariott is established as a brand, so that a traveler knows that wherever in the world he goes, the Mariott will give him the same experience every time.

Zman needs more editing and fact checking.  On p. 48, for example, it says that Sealand was established during WWII to shoot down Nazi airplanes and missiles. Germans did not have missiles, certainly not until the end of the war and not the kind that could be shot down; neither did the British possess anti-missile defences since missiles did not yet exist. The Adar issue is sloppy, with typographical errors. More important is the English. The writers for Zman mix styles and metaphors and do not always assure grammatical and syntactic correctness.

Here are two sentences- judge for yourself.

They ignored British law, which caused grave concern for the government authorities, whose patience finally burst when one of them was murdered during a confrontation(p. 49).

This time he happended to come to him literally on the day that Bear-Stearns went under and the fellow lost a fortune( p.9).

This is in a stage before "Elements of Style". English teachers, anyone?

Zman should retain someone with an extensive liberal arts education to fact check the articles. On p. 112, the author suggests that we "be sure to render under Obama the things that are Obama's". The author may not have been aware of the actual wording, source and provenance of the expression, or he would have elected not to use it. Here is the quote from the original source: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25). It is appropriate to say, "one nation under G-d", but not "render under Obama..".

The Ask The Doctor column is curious as well.  It's purpose is stated to be: "to share concepts and ideas to maintain Jewish soul and body balance through the "intermediate" way...It is hoped that column will serve as a useful source of health-related information in the context of a strong emphasis on the inner soul of a Jew". This is followed by a very allopathic and quite standard discussion of Depression.  This column bears watching. It will be interesting to see if it will evolve into a standard medical advice column or become a portal for New Age philosophies.

All in all, Zman can prove to be a valuable addition to the Chareidi public's reading choices. The first few issues will establish the professionalism and positioning of this promising new venture.

Add: The second issue has largely corrected the problems. B"Hatzlacha!