Modern art is stupid.

The seal of Columbia University contains the Hebrew name of god, and the seal of Dartmouth college contains the phrase “el shadai” (also in Hebrew). Does this mean that a degree from either of these colleges is considered shamot and cannot be thrown away? The same goes for T-shirts and other college related paraphernalia that are emblazoned with the seal. In other words, does intent matter when creating the words, or only the resultant text? Has anyone encountered this before?

Since I’m on the subject, the Wash U seal is incredibly boring by comparison. It also doesn’t seem to exist anywhere online – I had to go find my diploma in order to see what it looked like, although a brief description is on the commencement page. It’s a simple open book with the Latin name of the university (Universitas Washingtoniana) printed circularly around it.

If anyone feels like buying me a birthday present (despite it not being my birthday), I would gladly accept one (or two) of these.

Sports advertising is usually a case study in advertising that targets men – from beer and strip clubs to cars sporting events, it’s obvious what advertisers think men want. The other day while listening to the Flyers-Caps game on the radio I heard something new – an advertisement for cosmetic surgery that was clearly aimed at men. I somehow feel like it’s the end of an era, but I’m not really sure what era that is (perhaps the era when at least some percentage of the population didn’t have huge psychological issues with their physical appearance). Most likely it’s the beginning of a new one. sigh.

I cut my hair yesterday for the first time in about 2.5 years (last time was the day after I went sky-diving, Oct 2005) . I’ve found my preferred method for dealing with my hair is to go boy-short, then ignore it until it’s long enough to donate to Locks of Love. The organization was very popular at my undergrad, with a big event every year on campus where students would get publicly shorn (one needs at least 10 inches to donate). (A common misconception is that cancer patients are th main recipients of the donated hair. LoL actually focuses on children with permanent causes of hair loss, primarily auto-immune. This can still be quite devastating to a kid, even if it’s not life threatening, and makes LoL a very worthy cause. I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions)

I got my haircut at the beauty school down the street, mainly because it’s very inexpensive and I wasn’t that concerned with the results. I explained to the girl what I wanted done and she was definitely a little bit traumatized by my request. She kept asking if I was sure before we started, and if I was okay after. I think she was afraid I would get angry with her after the fact.

I love the short-short hair, but maybe next time I should warn Ari before I do this…

I’m kind of surprised no one was more interested in my post about the Rambam’s four questions. I guess it’s just more proof that I spend a lot of time pondering things no one else really cares about. The CRC has a fairly good (albeit somewhat lacking in depth) article on whether the carbon dioxide in soda is chumetz. I know it sounds implausible enough to be an April fool’s day hoax (seriously – the fourth most common gas on earth being chametz?) but if you ignore your knee-jerk reaction to the topic, it’s actually an interesting case study in the interaction between science and halakha, and how our knowledge of the former shapes the latter.

On a related note, I finally got myself a copy of Meachem Kasher’s hagaddah sheleimah earlier this week. With pesach cleaning I haven’t had a chance to spend as much time with it as I would like, but I must say that I can’t remember ever having had this much fun with a sefer before. It’s simply great.

Chag kasher v’sameach to everyone.

As it is about a week till pesach (oh no – I need to pesach clean!!!), I’ve been reading Rambam’s hilchot chametz u matzah. I came across something today which made me wonder about the status of the four questions according to Rambam. First off, a quick review is in order. Although there are some manuscripts of the mishnah which only report 3 questions, the final version of the talmud bavli (see daf קטז of the link for the details), presents four questions to be asked at pesach time: matzah, maror, dipping, and roasted meat. (The korban pesach was fire roasted).

Now we look at Rambam:

ב[...]ומוזגין הכוס השני, וכאן הבן שואל.  ואומר הקורא, מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות:  שבכל הלילות, אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת; והלילה הזה, שתי פעמים.  שבכל הלילות, אנו אוכלין חמץ ומצה; והלילה הזה, כולו מצה.  שבכל הלילות, אנו אוכלין שאר ירקות; והלילה הזה, מרורים.  שבכל הלילות, אנו אוכלין בשר צלי שלוק ומבושל; והלילה הזה, כולו צלי.  שבכל הלילות, אנו אוכלין בין יושבין ובין מסובין; והלילה הזה, כולנו מסובין.

ג  בזמן הזה, אינו אומר והלילה הזה כולו צלי–שאין לנו קרבן.

In short, Rambam lists five questions:  dipping, matzah, maror, roasted meat, and leaning. His next halacha (8:3) starts off by saying that today, since there is no beit hamikdash, we don’t ask about the roasted meat. This is in no way unusual for the Rambam – in fact one of the great joys of studying Rambam is that he consistently talks about what happened in the beit hamikdash, and then only afterwards mentions that we don’t do perform that action today. The new question that Rambam adds on leaning is his own invention, and one that could not have existed in the time of the mishnah of gemarah as reclining during meals was the standard then, and would not have elicited curiosity. He seems to add a new question (which is still said today) in order to keep the number of questions consistent at 4. However, if we were to get the beit hamikdash and the korban pesach back, it would seem at first glance that Rambam would say to ask five questions. (In fact, while trying to discover if anyone has addressed this issue before, I found several websites which claimed that Rambam reported there were originally five questions asked in the time of the beit hamikdash. Although it could be read that way, it is clear that Rambam knew better. After all, he clearly had a copy of the gemarah, and he himself is the alleged inventor of the fifth question on reclining). I have no problem with a number of questions other than four, but I am bothered by the lack of consistency. (In fact, I actually think the manuscript versions of the mishnah which give only 3 questions actually make for a more cohesive reading of the mishnah than the current one, but that’s a post for another time). Rambam initially adds a new question in order to keep the number consistent at four. This would imply some sort of importance to the number, or at least to the need for consistency in the number. However, he doesn’t drop one if we get the korban back. This implies a lack of importance to the number four. So which way is it – does the Rambam value the number four or not? Any thoughts?

As a quick addendum, it would seem to me that if Rambam’s initial implication was to drop the fifth question (reclining) when/if the korban returns then he would have included it in 8:3 and not 8:2. Thus his text would have included four questions in 8:2, and a comment in 8:3 that today we ask about reclining instead of roasted meat. But then again, what do I know, maybe this always was his intention.

So I was recently telling someone that there is a coffee made only from beans eaten and then pooped out by a monkey…which of course they didn’t believe me, because who would want to eat such a thing?  Turns out they were right, it’s not a monkey it’s a jungle cat.

This is interesting albeit completely useless – a list of the oldest still registered domain names on the web.

I was sent to Denver for 2 days to be trained on a new product. (Maybe not new, but new to me). I got in this afternoon, headed to the hotel, and found the hotel gym. They had an outdoor track that I decided to try. Now I don’t jog very often (I don’t particularly like it), but last week I went 1.5 miles on the treadmill, so I figured that on real ground I should be able to at least do a mile. Boy was I wrong. After a half mile I was gasping for breath despite the fact that my legs felt fine. I gave up and headed inside to use the weights and found myself continuing to suffer from shortness of breath. Since I’m too young for a heart attack I tried to find other causes – did I eat too recently? Did I not eat enough? Had I gotten enough protein today? carbohydrates? Salt? Iron? Was it the time change? Was I not breathing properly with each repetition? When I returned to my room I noticed the hotel’s “welcome to Denver” guidebook which gave me my answer – I’d forgotten that I was a mile above sea level! (In the words of Morpheus from the Matrix, “You think that’s air you’re breathing?”). The point of this story is simply that anyone who tells you that the difference in air density at high and low altitudes is psychosomatic is a liar.

…because this blog can’t all be random and deplorable violence, here’s something that’s just plain fun.

I don’t often describe people’s behavior as despicable, but this is an abnormal situation. Sean P. Conroy, an otherwise anonymous man was waiting on a crowded subway platform (13th and market) at 2:35 PM when he was accosted by four teenagers who decided to “body drop” him (this is apparently considered fun to some). One thing apparently led to another, and the four teens ended up beating Sean to death. There was no altercation, no motive for attack, no confrontation of any sort. They simply picked him at random, attacked him, and beat him to death.

As reprehensible as it is, this is not the worst behavior exhibited on the 13th street subway platform that day. According to the reports:

Other people were on the platform, [police captain] Harold said, but left when the sergeant approached.

Conroy went “into some type of difficult breathing, chest pains, palpitations,” Harold said. “He was in obvious distress.”

“No one tried to help,” Harold said. “It just looked like a disturbance.”

When an innocent man is attacked and beaten people stand and watch, and yet when the police approach to try and assess the situation, people decide to run. What kind of screwed up society do we live in where people will sit idly by while a man is murdered and then flee for safety when law enforcement arrives? I remember my grandmother, a woman who was born in Germany in the 1920s, telling me that the people who witnessed the Nazi atrocities and did nothing where just as guilty as the Nazis. My gut instinct is to disagree on the grounds that there is a fundamental difference between action that causes harm and inaction that allows harm to occur (with apologies to Isaac Asimov). In this case, I think that those who watched exhibited more deplorable behavior, if that is even possible, than those who acted. This sort of activity began as a defense against gang retribution, but the “stop snitching” campaign has taken on a life of its own to the point where it is now an ethic unto itself. Witness for example one of the schoolmates of the alleged attackers:

Ty, 15, said he was interested to know whether the youth already in custody had identified the other alleged killers.

“Me personally, the way I was raised, I wouldn’t snitch,” he said.

Nice Ty – glad to see you sticking up for your principles. By any chance was “the truth” included in your education as part of “the way you were raised”?

Now I don’t want to live in a 1984-esque police state, or have to live with a security camera on every corner, but if people refuse to take even the slightest action to bring a murderer to justice, then I’m afraid that may be what we end up doing.