Of Rabbis and Poppies and Remembrance Day

I’ve noticed more than a few people walking around with felt poppies attached to their lapels over the past week, in honor of Remembrance Day (November 11). I don’t recall ever seeing this in the US, but upon investigation I have found it to be the standard way to mark Remembrance Day/Veterans Day/Armistice Day in Canada, as well as several other countries.

The question, of course: Will I wear a poppy?

I’m torn on this issue. (No, this is not another semi-serious post about being an American in Canada. This one is serious.)

Why wear it?

1. I believe patriotism to a secular government is an important value for the Jewish community, on levels both moral and pragmatic.

2. Further, as a friend has pointed out, lack of overt patriotism in our institutions may contribute to the delinquency of those few but notorious Jews who violate the laws of the land.

3. I also feel personally patriotic, as I wrote here.

4. And how could one not feel and display gratitude to people who knowingly risked their lives – and lost that gamble – for the sake of fighting Nazism and other scourges? It would seem to me that the Jewish community should produce poppies en masse, and make them mandatory garb.

Further, this is clearly not “chukot akum (the ways of the nations - the Torah prohibits us from emulating the nations around us),” for two reasons:

A. As the Sifri (Devarim 81) points out, the major concern of the prohibition against emulating non-Jewish ways is about being drawn into acting like them, and I would be hard-pressed to apply that to the poppies. (Rashi also introduces the similarly inapplicable concept of superstition in Shabbat 67a.)

B. The halachah is fairly clear that we would not apply the rules of chukot akum to an ornament that is not, in its nature and definition, an irrational חוק. See Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1: This is all prohibited only as far as conduct they practice for the sake of immorality, such as the red clothes their aristocracy wears, and practices they have inaugurated and made into rules for themselves, without reason; there is cause to be concerned for Emorite superstition or idolatry behind these practices. If they have a beneficial practice, though, such as that expert doctors wear a certain garment which signifies their expertise, then one may wear such a garment. Similarly, one may wear garments which are worn for honor or for some other reason.

And yet, and yet…

Overt patriotism is still somewhat “un-cool” in the observant community, perhaps a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people, as well as our externally and internally imposed sense of being “other.” Although I have seen many observant Jews around Toronto wearing these decorations, my sense is that they are the minority. (This may change on November 11 itself; we’ll see.)

And then there is the added factor of my role as Rabbi, even sans synagogue. For those who do see the poppies as a sign of assimilation, I would be written off as left-wing, and that would make teaching in those parts of the communities impossible. (And, let’s not deny it – I don’t particularly cherish the possibility of personal unpopularity. I imagine teenagers go through the same thing re: poppies. Peer pressure lives.)

But I do think it's the right thing to do.

So I don’t know what I will do. I'm inclined to wear it... but I'm still mulling.

[Update: In the end, I did wear a poppy on my coat.]

Daf: Nazir 59-63 - Women, Weapons and non-Jewish nazirites

Getting toward the end of Nazir here. Some very interesting discussions of cross-dressing, as well as women carrying weapons, and a non-Jewish nazir.

59a
The discussion of cross-dressing and of women carrying (let alone wielding) weapons of war begs the question of Yael the Keini’s actions in killing Sisera. Pseudo-Rashi here offers the standard explanation, that this is why Yael used a tent peg rather than a dagger. It isn’t clear that the whole story is a problem in the first place, though, since Yael, it may be argued, was not Jewish. This is subject to the debate of whether Yitro, Yael’s ancestor, returned home and converted his family, or not.
Note that when the Jews went to war against Amalek under Shaul in Shemuel II 15, they asked the Keini to move away from Amalek first. It certainly sounds as though the Keini did not consider themselves Jewish.
For more on the issue of women and weapons of war, see Abarbanel on Devorah, as well as Tzitz Eliezer 20:31:1 on Devorah. See also Targum to Shoftim 5:26 on Yael. For modern applications, see Yechaveh Daat 5:55, Igrot Moshe 4:9 and 4:75:3, and Tzitz Eliezer 18:63.

See Tosafot חזינא and ההוא, and the Rosh, regarding the status of scissors for male shaving of פיאות.

The title of בר פחתי is, of course, reminiscent of הקריבהו נא לפחתך. The word פחה is linked to pasha, I believe.

59b
See the Rosh explaining how this was supposed to sharpen the minds of the students.

60b
The last five lines on the page appear to be a restatement of what we know from before? Noet that the Rosh has לישנא אחרינא here.

61a
I am troubled by the statement, from the Erchin discussion, that בני ישראל is global rather than Jewish-specific – it’s only because of the additional word איש that we are able to say it is universal in the ערכין case! But I’ve never found an answer for this.

61b
Tosafos quotes a pasuk to show that an עכו"מ does not have the פרה אדומה ritual.

Lest anyone ask how the Torah could legislate such a prohibition for an עכו"מ, outside the 7 mitzvos bnei noach, I’d point out that we have prohibitions against עכו"מ learning Torah (Sanhedrin 59a) and observing Shabbat (Sanhedrin 58b).

62b
Note, on the first mishnah, that when the אדון forces the עבד כנעני to break his vow and drink, the vow remains binding such that when the עבדות ends, the vow is reinstated. (Rosh, and gemara later)

Note the reversal of the names of Abbaye and Rava. This is standard, based on the idea that since Abbaye started out as Rava’s rebbe, he does not respond to Rava’s ideas, but rather Rava responds to his. Sometimes Rava’s name is edited to “Rabbah” for the same reason.

63a
The use of רגלים לדבר here is odd. The phrase means that we have observed an event or a fact which indicates that certain results or associated events/facts are also likely. It comes from the term רגל as “cause” (as well as “foot,” much as עקב is also “cause” as well as “heel”). Here, though, the term רגלים לדבר doesn’t fit. The Rosh notes as much.