who eats pumpkins?

There is an ongoing (and surprisingly frequent) makhloqet between Oren and me regarding the appropriate beginning to the phrase "_______, _______, pumpkin eater."
Oren says "cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater."
I counter that it is Peter who eats pumpkins, and the poem goes:

Peter Peter pumpkin eater
had a wife and (but?) couldn't keep 'er
put her in a pumpkin shell
and there he kept her very well.

I know I am right. Or rather, that my version is older/"original" and his version is derived, since mine has a whole poem, and his is just an accusation, but anyway, today someone else said his version independently. Both Oren and the second offender are children of immigrants, whose innauguration into childhood rhymes is apparently lacking. However, the question remains. What is the word on the street? Has "Peter" evolved into "cheater" for the youth of today (due perhaps both to their lack of familiarity with poetry and to the objectionable content of this particular poem...)?

wierdest fortune ever (ok, probably not...)

"Your love of gardening will take on new meaning in your life."

uppety women

the following is a teshuvah from the israeli webste moreshet that came to my attention via my chevruta's mother in law. the qquestion was two part. the more eye-catching part, with which i will not deal now, is whether single women should be allowed or encouraged to use mikvaot. the firts question listed, though, is whether anything can be done for women who are embarassed at having the mikvah atendant check them prior to tevilah. The questioner suggested that the mkvah attendant be abolished entirely, which has halakhic problems, but the basic question re: inspection still stands. The answer is basically that there isn't an actual halakhic need for the pre-immersion inspection (rather, the woman must do it herself and hta's enough), but there is a halakhic need for an attendant during immersion itself. In any event, one part of the answer really struck me, which I have bolded in the translation below:

(ps, I know it's considered impolite to talk about hilkhot niddah in public, but 1- this is really interesting and 2- its not exactly lewd or salacious, so forgive me...)

להלן קטעים מתשובתו של הרב יעקב אריאל, הי"ו, רבה הראשי של רמת גן:

"...הבלניות רואות את עצמן כשליחות קדושות שכל האחריות מוטלת על כתפיהן, ולכן כל הידור וכל חומרה נוגעת לליבן. הן עוסקות במלאכה זו במסירות נפש, בלילות שבת וחג, בשעות מאוחרות, בשכר זעום, וקשה לשכנע אותן שתנחנה את הטובלות לטבול לפי הבנתן.
עם זאת, יש צורך הכרחי בהשגחה על הטובלת שכל שערה יכנס לתוך המים, בפרט לנשים ששערן ארוך. זו כבר לא חומרה אלא דין, ובלי השגחה יש לחשוש שהטבילה לא עלתה.
אפשר להגיע להבנה בין הטובלות לבלניות על כך שהן תיכנסנה רק כאשר הטובלת כבר בתוך המים, ורק תוודא ששערה נכנס כולו למים. אך כאמור, רוב הבלניות לא מוכנות לוותר על אחריות שליחותן, ולא אחת נתקלתי אישית בסירוב של הבלניות לקבל את דעת הרבנים..."

"The attendants see themselves as holy messengers, with all the responsibility on their shoulders, and therefore every embelishment (of the mitsvah) and stricture touches their heart. They engage in this occupation with self-sacrifice, on sabbath and festival evenings, at late hours, with a pitiful wage, and it is difficult to convince them that they should allow the immersers to immerse according to their (own) understanding. Given this, there is a compelling need for supervision over the imersers that all her (sic) hair should enter into the water, especially for women with long hair. This is already not a stringency but the law, and without oversight it is possible to suspect that the immersion did not count.
It is possible to arrive at an understanding between the immersers and the attendants such that they will enter only once the immersers are already in the water, and will only certify that her hair all went into the water.
But, as has been said, most of the attendants are not ready to give up on the responsibility of their messenger-ness, and not (just) once have I personally encountered the refusal of the attendants to accept the opinion of the rabbis."

בשולי הדברים: נשים רשאיות לתבוע את צניעותן ופרטיותן, וכפסיקת הרב – הבלניות מופקדות על כשרות הטבילה של כל שערן בלבד. כדאי לבוא ערב אחד ולשוחח עם הבלנית (לא בליל הטבילה, כשכולן לחוצות) ופעמים ששיחה זו עולה יפה.
כל טוב, ויישר כוח על המכתב

Can we imagine a situation in which the rav ha-machshir of a restaurant says "you know, the mashgiach just won't listen to me, what can I do?"
Perhaps this is because I am a woman, but it really strikes me that a lot of the minhagei ta'ut that are allowed to live are those generally practiced by women (eg, excessive pesah cleaning, obsession with meat/milk separation in situations where there is no possible transfer of taam, etc...) Rabbis just can't convince women that they're wrong. Is it because traditionally women are not trained to listen to the sort of (logical/talmudic/hairsplitting) arguments rabbis are trained to give? (Most rabbis can give a touchy-feely argument when necessary, so that can't be all...)
There's also the sense that this particular rabbi, at least, is only half-heartedly opposed to the practices that make women feel uncomfortable - he does call it holy work - in which case maybe he didn't come down so strongly against it...
There's probably some feminist reading here of how women have power to define their own cultural spheres over the objections of the rabbis, except that feminists hate mikvah attendnats so perhaps this reading has not been actualized... ;)
Anyhow, I thought it was fascinating.

of late i am feeling some (friendly) pressure to attend the april 30th Darfur Raly in DC. So I thought this might be a good time to explore my discomfort with that.

1 - i don't go to rallies. the last time I went to anything like a rally was in fifth grade and when I got forced to carry a sign I was supremely embarassed, despite the relatively bening cause. (This is an exploration of my feelings, not a justification thereof...)

2- this is more interesting: i am wary of the whole darfur "movement," such as it is, for a few reasons:

a - i remember in high school we had a representative from the american anti-slavery group come talk to us who introduced his whole slave-freeing enterprise as a offensive to make "the Arabs" look bad. (The group started witha focus on Arabs selling Blacks in Africa. the trafficking in women and girls, etc, stuff is newer, I think, on their agenda) He admits that he has since also come to car deeply about the human rights issues, etc... I am not suggesting that the motives behind the Darfur rallies, etc, are so cynical, but just that I make the emotional connection in my own head,based on the structural similarities of Jews protesting Arabs molesting blacks, making me uncomfortable.

b - It seems like the only cause anyone could get a whole bunch of Jews to agree on - there's no clear political affiliation involved (unlike other "human rights" issues that are often also very political. witness: colombia ;) ), and its not about Israel.

now, (b) might be just as easily be read as "this is a clear-cut case of evil, independent of analytical perspective." so why do i prefer the cynical reading again?

perhaps its related to (c):

c - its not clear what people want to have doneabout it. I just can't get excited about "consciousness raising." So what are the "action steps." I think there are answers to this out there, I just haven't really spent the time to figure out what they are and whether they make sense.

so if its just about getting together and yelling, it makes more sense to read it as for external (potentially cynical) purposes.

Oh, and is this even something in the air for people who don't hang out with Ruth Messinger?

is it just me ofr is the following annoucnement for a shiur ironic?

Halachos of Childbirth
(for men only)

(note: lest you think they just don't teach women, there is a "refresher" shiur on the laws of niddah offered by the same folks, for which there are separate men's and women's classes.)

be-dibbur ehad?

In the context of my seemingly never-ending (but actually generally neglected except for spurts right before deadlines. like now...) research into women and kiddush, I ran across this nifty Sifra:

Sifra behukotai parashah 1, s.v. “im be-hukotai telekhu’ (1:3 in Bar Ilan land)
ספרא בחוקותי פרשה א

(ג) וכן הוא אומר "זכור את יום השבת לקדשו" יכול בלבך, כשהוא אומר "שמור", הרי שמירת לב אמורה, הא מה אני מקיים זכור? שתהי' שונה בפיך.

‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy’
– when [the text] says ‘guard’ (Deut. 5:12), then internal guarding is mentioned.
Then what must I establish [as the meaning of] ‘zakhor’?
- That you should say it verbally.

Kiddush here is connected to the "zakhor" as opposed to "shamor," however both seem to be taken as refering to positive rememberance of shabbat.

In contrast is the more famous midrash halakhah (perhaps not so formal, but it does seem like a hekesh) in Berakhot, 20b, regarding women the postiive obligation of "kedushat ha-yom" (aka "kiddush"):

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף כ עמוד ב

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה נשים חייבות בקדוש היום דבר תורה אמאי מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות אמר אביי מדרבנן אמר ליה רבא והא דבר תורה קאמר ועוד כל מצות עשה נחייבינהו מדרבנן אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא +שמות כ'+ זכור +דברים ה'+ ושמור כל שישנו בשמירה ישנו בזכירה והני נשי הואיל ואיתנהו בשמירה איתנהו בזכירה

Rav Ada son of Ahavah said: 'Women are obligated in the sanctififcation of the day at the Torah level.'
Why? - It is a positive timebound commandment, and women are exempt from all positive timebound commandments!
Abbay said: he (Rav Ada son of ahavah) spoke of a rabbinic obligation.
Rava said to [Abaye]: but he said 'on the torah level'! And furthermore, will we obligate them in all positive commandments by rabbinic decree (ie, what is teh reasoning for including women in kiddush specifically)?
Rather, Rava said (in answer to the origianl question): Scripture says 'remember' and 'leep' ('zakhor' and 'shamor') - everyone who is included in keeping (shemirah, here being understood as negative commandments of shabbat) is included in remembering (zekhirah, which includes/equals? the positive commandment of kiddush), and these women, since they are included in shemira, they are included in

zekhirah

.

So, in both derashot zekhirah is the recitation of kiddush. But in one, shemirah is internally rememebering shabbat and in one shemirah is not doing melacha, etc. Is there a reconciliation, or shall we say that the understanding of shamor changed from the (early) sifra to the later Amoraim? Alternatively, how serious a drashah is the Sifra? Does it really think that both shamor and zachor can be fully explained as references to kiddush hayom?
One thing abt Rava, though, is that he understand the imparateive "shamor" as a reference to negative commandments. One nice thing abt the Sifra is that it understands "shamor" as the positive imperative it looks like.

Just came to my attention. thoughts?