Kosher for Passover matzo must be made in 18 minutes or less, from start to finish. The result is the basic matzah you know and either love or hate—flat, dry, and reminiscent of cardboard. Shmurah matzah, or matzah that has been guarded, is made the same way that regular matzah is made—except that it's watched from the day the grains are planted in the field to the moment it comes out of the oven. And while there’s certainly a long tradition of eating this kind of matzo, it’s not what is described in the Bible as the Jews left Egypt.
Manischewitz: not the original matzah
First of all, bread made in ancient Egypt would almost certainly have been something like the sourdough bread of today. A starter piece of bread was kept from an old loaf and used to make the dough for new loaves. (For more information and instructions on how to make your own bread this way, click here.) This process did take a reasonable amount of time—certainly a few days—but if you bake sourdough bread before it’s fully risen it will just be denser and sourer. The result would likely be something like a heavy pita, not shmurah matzah.

This isn’t the only discrepancy between the story we’re told and the particulars we can deduce. If you look closely at the text of the Exodus story, the Jews had a full two weeks to prepare for their departure. They didn’t eat unleavened bread because they had to get out quickly, they ate unleavened bread because it’s commanded in Exodus 12:8: And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. This eating of matzo happened well before the Jews actually left Egypt. It’s part of the eating of the pascal sacrifice, which comes before the final plague, the killing of the firstborn sons. This implies that the Jews were specifically told to make matzah, it wasn’t just an accidental result of their flight. Later in Exodus 12:34, and again in Deuteronomy 16:3, the Torah explains that we eat matzah to remind us of how quickly we went out of Egypt, but the actual eating of matzah happened before the Exodus.

I haven’t been able to find much on the history of matzo, so I don’t know when the matzo we know today became the standard unleavened bread for Passover, but what you pull out of your Manischewitz box probably has very little resemblance to what was eaten in the desert as the Jews fled Egypt.

Previous: Jews Don't Do Polygamy

Related: Five Things to Know About the Fast of the Firstborn

Big Love: Technically KosherThe recent raid of a polygamist sect's ranch in Texas got us wondering about polygamy outside of the Mormon community—specifically among Jews.

Jews have a biblical tradition of men marrying multiple wives (Jacob, for instance, married Leah and Rachel, and had two concubines as well). So why are today’s polygamists living in communities and compounds in Texas, Utah, and Colorado, but not in Jerusalem and Williamsburg?

Polygamy was allowed in biblical times, but seems to have been something mainly reserved for the very rich: Basically, those wealthy enough to afford it. Even in those situations, there were limits. Deuteronomy 17:14-17 says, “I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee…Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.” Kings were seen as standard bearers for all Jews, so Jews shouldn’t have too many wives. The rabbis limited the allowed number of wives at 18, though that would have been extremely rare even in the centuries when the Talmud was being written.

By the time the Mishnah and Talmud were being written, polygamy seems to have fallen out of favor. More than 2500 rabbis are mentioned in the Talmud, and only one of them had more than one wife. Polygamy is discussed at length in the Talmud, which parses situations having to do with inheritance and greed in families with more than one mother, but it seems to be more of a legal exercise than a useful guide. Rabbi Gershom b. Judah (often referred to as Rabennu Gershom), a Rabbi living in France in the 10th century, famously decreed that polygamy was prohibited—along with reading other people’s mail. This prohibition has been held up by the Ashkenazi community since its inception, but the Sephardi community has actually never adopted it, and no major Sephardi rabbinate is on record making a similar statement.

Believe it or not, Israel’s Chief Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has come out in favor of legalizing polygamy in contemporary Israel, and the Jerusalem Post published a pro-polygamy editorial by Greer Fay Cashman. There’s a pro-polygamy ultra-Orthodox Jewish blog, and a page at polygamy.com devoted to “an open analysis and review of the Cherem (excommunication) Rabbeinu Gershom and the issue of polygamy for Orthodox Jews.”

There are even some underground groups within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community that still practice polygamy. We might wish it was a myth, but it’s not.

Previously: There Are No Jews in China

Ears, Hats, Puns?: cookies. yum.As if we needed another reason to love a holiday that encourages us to drink heavily, Purim (coming up on Thursday night) is also the time of hamantaschen, those deliciously filled, triangular cookies that have inspired years of debate. Growing up, most of us were fed (and happily consumed) the lip-smacking lie that we eat hamantaschen because Haman, the villain of the Megillah, wore a tri-cornered hat. Why is "eating Haman’s hat" considered an appropriate way of celebrating his demise? And what's with Hebrew hamantaschen being called Oznei Haman, or Haman’s ears? Haman had triangle shaped ears, or maybe a tri-cornered hat, and so we eat poppyseed cookies? What’s the story?

Haman: a realisitic depiction? Not so muchA surprising amount of scholarly research has been conducted on the subject of hamantaschen (also spelled hamentaschen, hamantashen, and hamentashes). Philologos at the Forward does an excellent analysis of the etymology of both hamantaschen and Oznei Haman. Apparently hamantaschen are a comparatively old tradition, dating at least to the middle ages, and in Yiddish the precise translation is "Haman’s pockets." No hats of any shape are mentioned at all.

Oznei Haman originated as a completely different kind of delicacy popular in the Sephardi community, made out of twisted strips of dough flavored with citrus rind and deep-fried in oil. Oznei Haman seem to go back at least as far as the Spanish Inquisition, and actually have some textual basis. There’s a Midrash that says Haman’s ears were twisted as part of his punishment, so eating a commemorative pastry makes a certain—though small—degree of symbollic sense. It’s not clear when Oznei Haman became synonymous with Hamantaschen, but probably within the last century.

Last year I posted my hamantaschen recipe and noted that the Swedes have a suspiciously similar cookie, called Napoleon’s Hats or Napoleonhattar, which are traditionally filled with almonds. That actually makes a certain degree of sense: Tri-cornered hats were popular in Napoleon’s time.

The Seforim Blog has an incredibly comprehensive and amusing list of sources that discuss hamantaschen, going as far back as the 13th century. It also summarizes a number of rabbinical explanations for why we eat hamantaschen, including that hamantaschen is a pun on Haman tash—Hebrew for Haman was weakened, and that we eat the pastries because the filling is hidden inside in the same way that the miracle of the Purim story was hidden.

The Myth: Someone has published the minutes from a meeting of a bunch of Jewish elders who are plotting world domination and discuss the various way they plan to manipulate other peoples, economies, and governments. It has widely been used to fuel anti-Semitic sentiment.

Jews As Snakes: if only we were on a plane... Last year I had a scary experience at Vanderbilt where a professor started telling the class that the Elders of Zion were a religious group. I stepped in and immediately set the record straight, but even as I was talking I realized I didn’t know quite as much about the hoax as I’d like to.

There are some great online sources for debunking this myth. There’s always Wikipedia, which does a great job of giving background on the original document, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with a long and very well-cited article:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы", see also other titles) is an antisemitic and anti-Zionist plagiarism and literary forgery first published in 1903 in Russian, in Znamya; it alleges a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination.

"The Protocols" (the most brief title by which the text is known) is an early example of contemporary conspiracy theory literature, and takes the form of a speech describing how to dominate the world, the need to control the media, finance, replace traditional social order, etc. It is one of the best known and discussed examples of literary forgery, and a hoax.

The text was popularized by those opposed to Russian revolutionary movement, and was disseminated further after the revolution of 1905, becoming known worldwide after the 1917 October Revolution. It was widely circulated in the West in 1920 and thereafter. The Great Depression and the rise of Nazism were important developments in the history of the Protocols, and the hoax continued to be published and circulated despite its debunking.

The United State Holocaust Museum has a really nice page about the Protocols and all of the anti-Semitism they’ve inspired from their genesis at the turn of the 20th century through the Holocaust and to today.

Though the Protocols have been debunked over and over, they’re far from out of favor. There was a New York Times article about the Protocols in 2006 called The Anti-Semitic Hoax That Refuses to Die, and documentary called the Protocols of Zion about the rise of anti-Semitism after September 11th. Finally, there’s a Snopes page about a similarly anti-Semitic blood libel in Saudi Arabia that claims Jews use Christian blood to make hamentaschen. Snopes mentions the recent reprinting of the Protocols in an Egyptian newpaper.

A Washington Post article about the revival of interest in exorcisms in Eastern Europe made us wonder whether Judaism has any similar traditions. The answer is surprising!

In the article, one Polish Catholic reverend discussed his plans to build a “spiritual oasis" that will serve as Europe's only center dedicated to performing exorcisms. He’s got the support of the Vatican, and last year Poland hosted the fourth International Congress of Exorcists, which attracted over 300 exorcism practitioners from around Europe.
Exorcism: it ain't pretty
Exorcisms these days aren’t like what you see in the movies, but they’re not exactly pleasant, either. The WaPo article goes on to explain:

Exorcists said the people they help can be in the grip of evil to varying degrees. Only a small fraction, they said, are completely possessed by demons -- which can cause them to display inhuman strength, speak in exotic tongues, recoil in the presence of sacred objects or overpower others with a stench.

In those cases, the exorcists must confront the devil directly, using the power of the church to order it to abandon its host. More often, however, priests perform what some of them refer to as "soft exorcisms," using prayer to rid people of evil influences that control their lives.

It still sounds pretty crazy, and you may be patting yourself on the back for not being a part of such a wacky religion, but it turns out Jews have been doing our own version of exorcisms for centuries.
Dybbuks: circumcised demons, basically
Apparently we’re not so concerned about evil spirits. It’s the souls of the dead that cause problems for us Jews. An article from ghostvillage.com explains:

A human being that is possessed by a spirit or some otherworldly creature is a phenomenon found in a myriad of cultures and religions. Jewish folklore calls the spirit that causes this rare but remarkable occurrence a "dybbuk."

A dybbuk (pronounced "dih-buk") is the term for a wandering soul that attaches itself to a living person and controls that person's behavior to accomplish a task. The word "dybbuk" is the Hebrew word for "cleaving" or "clinging.

Rabbi Gershon Winkler has been studying Jewish folklore, spirituality, and its shamanic roots for more than 25 years. He has written books covering the Jewish perspective on ghosts, apparitions, magic, and reincarnation, including a book titled Dybbuk. I spoke to Rabbi Winkler about dybbuk from his office at the Walking Stick Foundation in the wilderness of New Mexico.

Rabbi Winkler said, "[Jews] don't believe in demonic possession. We believe that, on very rare occasions, there can be a possession of a living person by the soul of one who has left the body, but not the world, and they're seeking a body to possess to finish whatever they need to finish."

Winkler explained how stories of dybbuk go back to ancient scriptures. In the Old Testament of the Bible, in the Book of Samuel (18:10), a bad spirit is briefly described as attaching itself to King Saul, the first king elected chieftain of the ancient tribes of Israel: "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..." Later in the Bible, in the Book of Kings, the prophet Elijah is possessed by the spirit of a dead man who is trying to get the prophet to trick the King into going to war when he wasn't supposed to. Winkler said, "You have stories like that, that just nonchalantly mention spirits of people who have left us coming down to effect some change, some phenomenon in this world."

Full Story

Continue reading...

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard Israel referred to as an apartheid state. On college campuses in particular this kind of thing is all over the place. But it’s not just feisty undergrads trying to make a point—there’s also Jimmy Carter’s bestselling book, Peace Not Apartheid,which caused so much trouble when it came out in 2006.
Apartheid: a whole different ball of wax
You can be as "pro-Palestinian" as you want, but it’s hard to reasonably make the case that Israel is an apartheid state. The Internet teems with websites and articles that assert--with varying degrees of intensity--that Israel is nothing like the South Africa of a quarter century ago. The three best, as far as I’m concerned, are by Michael Kinsley from the Washington Post, a piece on the History News Network by Gil Troy, and a piece by South African Benjamin Pogrund, who is founding director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in Judaism.

The main points that these articles make to counter the apartheid argument are:

• Even accepting the discrimination that Arabs and Palestinians face in Israel, it’s nothing near as bad as blacks faced in South Africa. In the words of Pogrund:

The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasised at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.

• Arab Israelis can vote. Pogrund again:

A crucial, indeed fundamental, indicator of the status of Israel’s minority — and another non-comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel — is that Arabs have the vote. Blacks did not. The vote means citizenship and power to change. Arab citizens lack full power as a minority community but they have the right and the power to unite as a group and to ally with others.

• The official stance of the Israeli government is one of fairness and equal rights for the Palestinians and Arabs in Israel and the territories.

 

 

Whether or not these rights are held up is certainly questionable, but as Kinsley writes:
Apartheid had a philosophical component and a practical one, both quite bizarre. Philosophically, it was committed to the notion of racial superiority. No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes toward Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children.

• Zionism may be many things you don’t like, but it’s not racism.

All three articles spend some time on this, but here’s the jist:If the Jews aren’t a “race,” then it’s hard to make the case that anything a Jewish government tries to carry out is racism. Claiming Jews are a race is a traditionally anti-Semitic move, and discredits anything that comes after it.

There are a number of races on both sides, too. As Troy writes:

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

• Finally, Israel has a right to define its citizenship according to the wishes of the majority. That’s not a racist action, it’s democractic. Pogrund says:

If the majority wish to restrict immigration and citizenship to Jews that may be incompatible with a strict definition of the universality of humankind. But it is the right of the majority. Just as it is the right of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states not to allow Christians as citizens, or the right of Ghana and other African states to reject or restrict whites as citizens, or the right of South Africa to have a non-racial citizenship policy. It’s the norm for countries to have citizenship laws and immigration practices which do not subscribe to universal ideals, but which are, on the contrary, based on their perceptions of colour or religion or economic class or whatever. Europe demonstrates that every day in dealing with would-be economic migrants.

Previously: Nobody Has Sex Through a Hole in the Sheet

There are all kinds of kinky things going on in Orthodox bedrooms (see Calm Kallahs and the Frumsex messageboards for proof) but no one is having sex through a hole in the sheet.
Talit Katan: not lingerie

This rumor seems to have come from people looking at Orthodox Jews and their hardcore commitment to modesty and assuming that even during sex they’d insist on keeping everything covered up. But in fact, according to halacha you’re not allowed to have sex wearing any clothes at all, or anything that serves as a barrier between you and your partner (condoms are out).

Specifically, the hole-in-the-sheet things may have come from people seeing Jews in religious neighborhoods hanging their "talitot katan" out to dry. This poncho-like garment is about two feet by four feet, has a fringe on each corner, and a hole in the center for the wearer's head, and it looks somewhat like a small sheet with a hole. So, if you have a dirty mind, you might look at it and assume it’s some kind of uber-modest lingerie. But it’s not.

Actually, the rabbis have a pretty laissez fair attitude about what we do in bed, with the basic rule being that ejaculation has to happen inside the vagina (though some rabbis are even lenient about that).

Check out Snopes, and WorldNetDaily for more on this myth.

Previously: Blood Libel

Dracula: Not a jewWhile it's true that an illegal matzo factory was recently busted in New York, it's not true that, as the old Blood Libel myth goes, Jews have baked unleavened bread (or ever cooked anything, for that matter) with human blood. In fact, Jews are not the only people who have been accused of this crime. We asked David Biale, professor and author of the recent book, Blood and Belief: The Circulation of a Symbol Between Jews and Christians, to weigh in on the subject.

The blood libel is exactly that: a libel (i.e. a false accusation). The idea that some group you don't like steals your blood is a very widespread one. It first appears aimed against Christians in antiquity, who were thought, because of the Eucharist, to actually kill children and drink their blood. In the thirteenth century, it was aimed against the Jews. But as recently as the 1980s, there were accusations that child care workers engaged in Satanic rituals of this sort and a number of people drew long prison sentences.

To this day, stories of the Jewish Blood Libel are widely printed in Muslim countries, and are kept circulating around the world in part due to the continuing translation, publication, and sale of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Snopes debunks the myth, and offers samples from a recent, government-approved, Saudi Arabian article.

Previously: Jews Are Not a Tribe