RIP Pluto....and everything else we believed in

There are now eight (8) official planets in our solar system. Pluto, oh cute, furry, yellow dog is no longer one of them. (Even though apparently Pluto is another name for Hades, which makes a lot of sense given Charon is Pluto's moon, but I never knew that....and it's quite upsetting because Pluto the dog is cute and good while Hades....well, isnt.)

In days such as these we can't help but remember the other days that totally changed everything we knew...everything we held as stable, and knew we could believe in. No, I am not talking about September of 2001, or even the day George Harrison died in November of that year. I am talking about February of 2003 when I found out some grounbreaking, unbelievable facts:

Did YOU know that *drumroll please*
that .99999(repeating) = 1
that buildings are built to move

obvious? perhaps, but still...taking those two in at the time.....life changing

Did we win?

I've been reading lately a lot about "Hezbollah's victory" and found myself quite confused...

Hezbollah has had more losses. Lebanon is starting to turn against Hezbollah...ish. The UN is demanding that Hezbollah disarm/dismantle. Katushas have more or less subsided. How is this a Hezbollah victory?

I personally would say that it is a loss for Israel. They didn't get the kidnapped soldiers back. They didn't completely dismantle Hezbollah. And they didn't successfully destroy support for Hezbollah. And while failing to achieve these goals, they killed a lot of innocent civilians.

And come to think of it, Hezbollah did succeed in getting what it wanted:
(a) largescale terror and destruction in Israel
(b) unity/support from the Muslim brotherhood
(c) international support against Israeli aggression

That being said, I wouldn't agree with the papers' descriptions of this "Hezbollah Victory":

"Hezbollah's envoy in Iran viewed victory the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement could achieve during the recent 33-day long war as the onset of the annihilation of the Zionist regime."

And annihilation of the zionist regime? Come on! This propaganda is getting silly. I've got one word for y'all:

1967

Apikoros T'shuvot for Everyday Life - Part One

Installment One: Pre-marital Sex in Jewish Law: Just Jew It!

Everyone assumes that pre-marital sex is not okay. Or that is the common accepted view for most conservative leaning people- not just Jewish. But based on the Old Testament, and other interpretations, that is not necessarily the case. And here is how you do it:

Females:

(A) Jump into Lake Michigan
Nida laws - you need to purify yourself in a mikvah before engaging in such activities.

(B) Don't do family members family
See Vayikra/Achrei Mot, for specifics on who you can/cant see naked.

(C) Make sure beforehand that you don't want to marry the Cohen Gadol
Cohen Gadol being a Cohen who has been annointed (Leviticus 21:10). The Cohen Gadol needs to marry a virgin (Leviticus 21:13-14). The same rules DO NOT apply for Cohanim in general (Leviticus 21:7), it does not say this explicitly, but since it does for the Cohen Gadol, and uses similar phrasing about other people not to be married: eg widows, it is not out there to assume that stringencies as far as not marrying a non-virgin do not apply for Cohanim. They just can't marry a whore (zona) - so don't charge, chalala (woman who is of the seed of a cohen who married someone he couldnt), or divorced woman(Leviticus 21:7).

So pretty much, until the beit hamikdash part 3 comes up, and people figure out how to deal with the whole tame thing, theyre all fair game.

(D) You (female) don't mind giving up silver pieces from your ketuba
Ketubot typically are phrased something like:
“Amar la lahada betulata (insert name of betula/wife)…” and then go on to talk about how she's worth 200 silver zuzim for being a virgin…
and so, if you change the phrasing, and are willing to give up 200 silver zuzim, then there's no problem.

(E) Stay away from married men
Lo tinaf. Nuff said.

Males:

(A) Stay away from married women
Lo tinaf. Nuff said.

(B) Don't do family members family
See above.

(C) No Male Condoms
People say you shouldn't spill a seed (Genesis 38:9-10). In this case a dude pulled out and it went on the ground, instead of in his sister in law (in order so that his brother could have a son). So, it says that displeased elohim and He slew him. So I'm not convinced that He was necessarily displeased about spilling the seed in general, but most rabbis are. So, no traditional male-condoms for now, but other sources of birth control seem to be fair game (the pill, iuds, patches, etc.).

No, It Doesn't Mean You're Married

There are 3 ways to get married:
(1) With money (object of value, eg a ring)
(2) Through a shtar, a contract
(3) By sexual intercourse with the intention of creating a bond of marriage.

A) it doesn't count because you didn't have that intention and
B) no beit din would consider you married, because there were no witnesses (so dont do it in the open in front of two frum guys)

***Other common assumptions have to do with beastiality not being okay, as well as homosexual intercourse. I do not condone beastiality, thats cruel to animals, and so even if it technically says do not lie with one to defile yourself, its still not okay (Leviticus 18:23). So, stay away from animals. If you're female you're fine as far as homosexual sex is concerned (the Bible never specifies otherwise). If you're male, you may want to stay away from the missionary position - just don't lie down -(Thou shalt not lie down with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination- Leviticus 18:22).

For the record, these are not necessarily my views on how the Torah/Mishna/Gemara/etc. should be interpreted, or how I choose to lead my life. This was done in good fun, and not meant to shove crudeness in anyone's face, or to offend anyone. I do think, that this is an interpretation of these works, however, and I don't think most answers/approaches to these are issues, and textual reasons why these things "aren't okay" are sufficient.

Number Games

28 not 58.
lil smoke, not huge explosions.

What is she talking about? Check out this Jpost article I found today.

Reuters news agency admitted on Sunday that it had digitally altered a photograph of an Israeli attack on Lebanon on Saturday, showing more smoke than was actually present.
The photograph, as initially published, showed an aerial view of Beirut after an IAF attack, with two large pillars of smoke rising over the city. The caption read: Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs....
The scene was photographed by Adnan Hajj, who had also photographed the aftermath of the Israeli attack on Kana last week, in which the Lebanese initially claimed 58 fatalities, but could later only confirm 28.

Ultimately, does it matter?
Death is still death, 28 people is still 28 too many, smoke and destruction is still bad.
And of course the answer to the question is yes, it does matter - things should be reported accurately, people should be given the facts, while news papers are known to have some sort of agenda, doctoring photos and putting out bad numbers is wrong. But at the end of the day, when these things are corrected, sure, the reporter who doctored the photo should be fired (he has not been yet), and Reuters should issue a statement of apology (which they did), but ultimately, people are justified in saying so what? 28 is still a lot, smoke/destruction is still bad, etc.

(Un)fortunately it's not that simple.

First word that comes to mind when you hear that a Reuter's reporter by the name of Adnan Hajj doctored a photo to criticize the IAF...(yes this question/statement is unfair)