interesting Elul link...
here.

since Elul (the month leading up to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) begins next week. (Of course the days are based on 2004 days- so just start when Elul starts THIS year, which is Labor Day.)

Dvar Torah - Re'eh (my bar mitzvah portion 29 years ago)
A few years ago, I read in one of Rabbi Telushkin's books that Jews were supposed to give 10% of their income to charity - contrary to the popular myth that this is somehow a Christian custom. But I never knew where the rule came from.

This week's portion commands tithes of various sorts (Deut. 14:22-29), including tithes for Levites (verse 29) and "the stranger, and the orphan and widow" (id.). More broadly, it commands that "you shall not make your heart unfeeling and not close up your hand to your brother, the needy . . . open your hand to him" (15:7-8)

In his commentary to 15:8, Samson Raphael Hirsch states: "In their profound insight, our Satges, harking back to the law of [the tithes in Deut.14, have set the dimension of the duty of Tzedekah at one tenth . . . In this manner, every Jew is made to regard himself as the administrator of a charity fund - large or small- that has been entrusted to his care and consecrated to God, so that he must rejoice at every opportunity to turn his assets, which are no longer his, but have been entrusted to him by appropriate disbursement to a good purpose."

My first published recipes
For cholent (basically, bean stew) with:

mustard/ketchup cholent with baked beans

and

egg roll cholent.

sprawl and density
One common argument against anti-sprawl policies is that because Los Angeles is more densely populated than other regions, any such policies will create the same kind of congestion, pollution, etc. that Los Angeles suffers from.

The flaw in this reasoning is the casual assumption that just because Los Angeles is dense, it is the epitome of non-sprawl.

In his new book Edgeless Cities, Robert Lang explains why Los Angeles is still Sprawl City:

"Los Angeles' [relatively dense] development pattern does not mean that the region is pedestrian friendly. While the region's different land uses are proximate [close to each other], its urban design, which features wide boulevards and ample parking, still encourages auto use."

By the way....
I have added a whole bunch of new links to the Jewish part of the links page- check them out!

Dvar Torah- Ekev
Last week's Torah portion appears to have some more-or-less genocidal language about Jews destroying Canaanites and other pagans inhabiting the land(Deut. 7:2). At first glance, and even at second glance, this is pretty troubling.

But this week's portion makes such language a little less troubling. The Torah states that God "will dislodge those peoples before you little by little, you will not be able to put an end to them at once" (Deut. 7:22). In other words, you can't commit genocide even if you want to. Instead, the land of Israel will gradually evolve into a Jewish state.

So what does 7:2 mean? Perhaps a hint can be found in the passage right after 7:2, which prohibits intermarriage with the Canaanites. If the Hebrews were planning to murder all the Canaanites, obviously there would be no need for an anti-intermarriage rule.

I think one lesson of these passages is (leaving aside the substantive issue of how exactly the Hebrews should have treated the Canaanites) the importance of context- with Torah as with everything else. Read in isolation, 7:2 means genocide; read in context, it is a bit less clear.

Really good news for America
Today's USA Today has a story explaining that according to Justice Department statistics, sex crimes against children fell by 79% since 1993. (from 4.8 per 1000 children to 1.0).

This includes a one-year drop (2002-03) from 2.7 to 1.0, which I suspect is probably a fluke because it is so large. But even if you believe the higher number that is a 43% drop. Wow!

It seems to me, more broadly, that America may be becoming more like Israel. Israel has ugly politics, issues with terrorism, but low crime. 20 years ago, America had fairly civil politics, no real terrorism issues, and lots of violent crime. It seems to me that in all three areas, America is becoming more like Israel- civilization-threatening terrorism problems (bad), ugly polarized politics (bad) but much more day-to-day safety (good). I don't know what to make of it, though I guess on balance we are better off.

Dvar Torah- Vaethanan
This week's Torah portion contains the Shma, telling us to love God with all our heart, soul etc. (Deut. 6:5). The Sfat Emet (a 19th century Hasidic thinker) explaisn that this verse means "we need to become aware that each feeling we have is only the life-force that comes from God." In other words, to be constantly aware that everything comes from God.

Why I fast on Tisha'b'Av
Orthoprax explains more eloquently than I ever could today.

(Brief summary: Temple or no Temple, the wars that led up to the destruction of the Temples was an enormous human tragedy.)

Klinghoffer on evolution
In this week's Forward, David Klinghoffer asserts that Jews should start lobbying school boards in favor of the "intelligent design" theory of life's origins.

I think Klinghoffer has a point, but am not so sure about his ultimate conclusions.

He is right in suggesting that most forms of Judaism favor something like "intelligent design." ("ID")* The idea of a God who creates everything by definition implies Divine design in some sense of the word. (I emphasize "some sense" because phrases like "intelligent design" are mere metaphors: I'm not sure it really makes sense to speak of an Infinite Being acting "intelligently" or "not-so-intelligently" in the way that a human being can so act).

But unlike Klinghoffer, I am not sure the discussion ends there. Given that Judaism presupposes something like ID, does that mean that our rabbis should be arguing that D should be taught in public schools to non-Jewish students? As is always the case, the question of where to draw the line between what Jews should believe and how/whether those beliefs should be applied to law governing a predominantly non-Jewish society is a vexing one. (See my Dvar Torah of August 1 on urban growth boundaries).**

In other words, there are really two issues here
(1) what was the Jewish view of ID?
(2) does church/state separation mean that the Jewish view of ID doesn't belong in the public schools, any more than the Jewish view of the Sabbath belongs in the public schools?

Klinghoffer talks about (1) but I'm not sure he realizes the importance of (2).

*Klinghoffer goes on to suggest that Darwinism is inconsistent with Judaism because its "reliance on random genetic variation as the root source for complex life" contradicts the idea of Divine creation. Since I have forgotten everything I learned in high school biology, I cannot intelligently agree or disagree. I suspect it all depends on the meaning of the word "Darwinism." If by "Darwinism" you mean evolution in the common-sense definition of the term, Klinghoffer is wrong because even apparently "random" genetic variation can be Divinely created. If by "Darwinism" you mean what Charles Darwin actually wrote and thought during his lifetime, the question is obviously more complex.

**In fact, the reason that I decided to blog about Klinghoffer is that his article overlaps with the August 1 post. The question of whether the Jewish view of evolution belongs in secular schools' biology classes doesn't seem that much different, in principle, from the question of whether Jewish land use regulation belongs in Oregon law. Both involve the question of to what extent Jewish tradition should inform our views in secular political matters.

so much for the claim that nobody wants to live in cities
One of the arguments for the pro-sprawl "everyone wants to live in the suburbs" theory is that even if some cities have been gaining population, the population gains don't reveal anything because the gains are due to immigration rather than to native-born whites (the theory being that the former group can't afford to live in the suburbs, while the latter group can). But get aload of this story from today's Washington Post:

"The white populations of the District, Arlington and Alexandria have grown this decade even as the region's outer counties have grown more diverse, according to new census estimates to be released today that underscore how the area's soaring housing prices and job sprawl are reshaping its racial and ethnic dynamics.

The city and those close-in Virginia suburbs had higher percentages of non-Hispanic white residents in 2004 than in 2000, a reversal of past trends, the estimates say. Minority groups grew more slowly than in the past, or declined."

"New census estimates say that the white share of the population has risen since 2000 in the District, Alexandria and Arlington and that the region's outer counties are becoming increasingly racially and ethnically diverse.

In the District, Arlington and Alexandria, whites became a larger share of the population -- by a rate that ranked in the top 10 among the nation's jurisdictions, according to Brookings Institution demographer William H. Frey. Whites account for 30 percent of the D.C. population, up from 28 percent in 2000, and their numbers rose 3 percentage points in both Arlington, to 64 percent, and Alexandria, to 58 percent."

And this is in a city that in many ways is still a mess: low-prestige public schools and a murder rate of about 35 per 100,000 (more than FIVE TIMES that of NYC, roughly twice that of Chicago). Imagine what would happen if the District worked.

Caveat: The statistics upon which the Post's story is based are from Census Department estimates, which (as noted very briefly in my 8-3 post) are not entitled to enormous weight.

my idea of good leadership
"As to stating what has been the most important event of the administration, I don't believe there has been any. If I had to make an answer to that question I should say that the best work, in my opinion, has been in the improvement of the city sidewalks. The good labor begun on the walks has been continued, and as the perfection of that endeavor has been my particular hobby this year, I am pleased at the results obtained."

-Frank Rice, mayor of New Haven, 1910 (from Douglas Rae's great book, City) (who I'm proud to say was a Republican)

Would that instead of World Savers of various types, we had people like Frank Rice in the White House - and the Senate, and the House, and the state legislatures, and the city councils....

announcing a webring

<<
List

Jewish Bloggers

Join
>>

I normally don't write about Israeli stuff, but this passage from the Atlantic Monthly grabbed me
"The second intifada also began with the intention of provoking the Israelis and subjecting them to diplomatic pressure. Only this time Arafat went for broke. As a member of the High Security Council of Fatah, the key decision-making and organizational body that dealt with military questions at the beginning of the intifada, Nofal has firsthand knowledge of Arafat's intentions and decisions during the months before and after Camp David. "He told us, 'Now we are going to the fight, so we must be ready,'" Nofal remembers. Nofal says that when Barak did not prevent Ariel Sharon from making his controversial visit to the plaza in front of al-Aqsa, the mosque that was built on the site of the ancient Jewish temples, Arafat said, "Okay, it's time to work."

Thanks to Bloghead for unearthing this fact.

White House at night (or, a little positive speech)
Last night I went to one of the local synagogues and heard a rabbi (whose name I cannot recall) discuss the evils of gossip and similar negative speech. He urged us to avoid harmful speech not just by trying to control ourselves, but by trying to see the good in people. So right now I am going to practice some positive speech for once.

Afterwards, I took the 16th Street bus home and by an odd coincidence I got off in Lafayette Park across from the White House. I walked to the White House.

Because Pennsylvania Avenue across the street from the White House is closed to auto traffic (and has been for a decade), I walked onto that great avenue-and I realized that I didn't feel like I was in a big city anymore.

Instead, you could hear the crickets, and you could hear the tourists talking to the cops.

It was unearthly and it was beautiful. It was like being in Carbondale, only with the White House in front of me.

And it occurred to me that for once our politicians had done something right.

Hurrah for President Clinton for closing Pennsylvania Avenue to cars!

And Hurrah for President Bush for keeping Pennsylvania Avenue closed!

more Kotkin-bashing
Kotkin wrote:

We don't yet know entirely how the terrorist threat -- "the fear factor" -- exacerbates urban depopulation trends. It is clear that American inner-city residents reacted far more strongly to 9/11 than people in suburbs and smaller towns. Polls taken months after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington showed that twice as many big-city residents as suburbanites, and four times as many as rural residents, felt "great concern" about future attacks.

More palpable are the decisions by financial services firms to shift more of their operations to suburbs and smaller towns, in part because they are less vulnerable to a potential terrorist assault. Jobs that used to be done in Manhattan are migrating to New York's outer suburbs, as well as to places such as Florida.
By contrast, in today's New York Times:

From Bensonhurst to Morrisania to Flushing, new homes are going up faster now than they have in more than 30 years. In 2004, the city approved the construction of 25,208 housing units, more than in any year since 1972, and that number is expected to be surpassed this year. Already, officials have authorized 15,870 permits.

Looked at another way, the city has 38 percent of the region's population but accounts for half of its new housing starts. Much of that development is being fueled by private money, a phenomenon not seen since the 1970's.

The mushrooming of housing development is an outgrowth of the city's decade-long population boom, low interest rates, government programs and a slide in crime, housing experts and city officials say. It has affected every borough and most neighborhoods, reshaping their physical form, ethnic makeup and collective memories.

Gee, if all the jobs are in Florida, how come people are building homes in New York?

beating up on Kotkin
Joel Kotkin's recent Washington Post essay, now lying atop his web page, is worth discusssing for a few of its errors.

Kotkin begins by wasting space recycling claims about how American cities are losing population in the wake of 9/11 (based on Census estimates, which, as noted in this article, are not worth all that much, because 1990s mid-decade Census estimates were far more pessimistic than justified by the actual 2000 Census).

He also asserts that sprawling auto dependency makes terrorism harder (disproven by his own admission in the same article that al-Qaeda terrorists plotted to blow up the airport in the national capital of sprawl, Los Angeles).

But the most interesting (and disturbing) portion of his article is his attempt to blame cities for terrorism. Kotkin writes:

"Now, cities may have to face a different menace. Sadly, many metropolitan leaders seem less than prepared to meet today's current terrorist threat head-on, in part due to the trendy multiculturalism that now characterizes so many Western cities. Consider London's multiculturalist Mayor Ken Livingstone, who last year actually welcomed a radical jihadist, Egyptian cleric Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, to his city.

Multiculturalism and overly permissive immigration policies have also played a role here in North America. Unfettered in their own enclave, Muslim extremists in Brooklyn helped organize the first attack on the World Trade Center in the early 1990s. Lax Canadian refugee policies have allowed radical Islamists to find homes in places like Montreal and Toronto, where some might have planned attacks on this country, like the alleged 2000 plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport.

In continental Europe, multiculturalism has been elevated to a kind of social dogma, exacerbating the separation between Muslim immigrants and the host society. For decades, immigrants have not been encouraged or expected to accept German, Dutch or British norms, nor have those societies made efforts to integrate the newcomers. Not surprisingly, jihadist agitation has flourished in Hamburg, Amsterdam, Madrid, Berlin and Paris as well as London.

If cities are to survive in Europe or elsewhere, they will need to face this latest threat to urban survival with something more than liberal platitudes, displays of pluck and willful determination. They will have to face up to the need for sometimes harsh measures, such as tighter immigration laws, preventive detention and widespread surveillance of suspected terrorists, to protect the urban future.

They will also need to institute measures that encourage immigrants to assimilate, such as fostering greater economic opportunity for newcomers or enforcing immersion in the national language and political institutions. Militant anti-Western Islamist agitation -- actively supportive of al Qaeda, for example -- also must be rooted out; it can be no more tolerated in Western cities today than overt support for Nazism should have been during World War II."

In other words, Kotkin takes the "blaming the city for its problems" approach to a whole new level: not only is he blaming cities for bad schools and high crime, he is suggesting that if only cities stopped allowing Muslim immigrants to enter and agitate they would be safer."

Kotkin overlooks one small fact: the issues he discussed (to the extent that they are within the control of any government) are national issues, NOT issues within cities' control.

To go blow by blow:

1. Kotkin attacks "overly permissive immigration policies" and asserts that cities need to "face up to the need . . . for tighter immigration laws." But cities have no control over which foreign immigrants live within their borders. Immigration is an issue handled by the national government, both in America and (as far as I know) elsewhere.

2. Kotkin attacks "multiculturalism." Multiculturalism is an intellectual (or perhaps pseudo-intellectual) movement, not something that government can legislate or abolish. Does Kotkin seriously think that if Ken Livingstone woke up one morning and issued a press release stating "Ken Livingstone hates Muslims", that radical Islamists would be deterred from living in or blowing up London?

3. Kotkin also wants curbs on civil liberties, endorsing more preventive detention, police surveillance and curbs on hateful speech. I think he might have a point- but again, these are not local issues. Even in New York City's judges started denying bail more routinely, they are limited by state criminal justice law and by federal constitutional criminal procedure (since the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments all relate at least in part to criminal justice). Similarly, any attempt to curb radical Islamic speech implicates First Amendment issues.

4. Kotkin says cities must "institute measures that encourage immigrants to assimilate, such as fostering greater economic opportunity for newcomers or enforcing immersion in the national language and political institutions." Kotkin fails to say how cities (or indeed any government) can do such things. And since Kotkin himself writes earlier in his essay that "businesses and industries escape the urban core to operate in small towns and even the countryside", he really has no reason to believe that cities can do anything to "foster greater economic opportunity to newcomers." Perhaps cities could "enforce immersion in the national language" by abolishing bilingual education- but since as far as I know the 9/11 and London terrorists knew English, I don't see what this point has to do with terrorism.

neat Jewish legends (or dvar Torah re Nine Days)
I went to a DC Beit Midrash study session and learned a bit last night.

First, a little background: We are in the middle of the "Three Weeks" before Tisha'b'Av (that is, the period when observant Jews seriously mourn the Second Temple's destruction, which took place on the 9th of Av in 70).

If you spend enough time around observant Jews you will commonly read, or hear, that the Second Temple was destroyed due to sinat chinam, "baseless hatred." But we learned last night that this is not quite right- not just because the phrase is not quite an accurate translation of the Hebrew,* but also for other reasons (to be explained below).

The rabbi began with this story from the Talmud:

"Gittin 55b:The destruction of Jerusalem came about because of [two men named] Kamza and Bar Kamza in this way. A certain man had a friend named Kamza and an enemy named Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant: "Go and bring Kamza [to the party]." The servant went and brought Bar Kamza.

When the man [who was giving the party] found him there, he said: "Hey, you tell lies about me; what are you doing here? Get out."

[Bar Kamza] said: "Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink."

He said: "I won't [allow you to stay]."

"Then let me pay for half the party."

"No," said the other.

"Then let me pay for the entire party."

He still said, "No," and he bodily removed him.

Said [Bar Kamza to himself]: "Since the rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against them to the [Roman] government.

He went and said to the emperor: "The Jews are rebelling against you."

[The emperor] said: "How can you tell?"

He said to him: "Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar in the Temple]."

So [the emperor] sent with [Bar Kamza] a fine calf. While on the way [Bar Kamza] made a blemish on its upper lip or, as some say, on the white of its eye, in a place where we count it a blemish but they do not.

The rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the [Roman] government. R. Zechariah ben Abkulas said to them: "People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar."

Then they proposed killing Bar Kamza so that he could not go and inform against them, but R. Zechariah ben Abkulas said to them: "Is one who makes a blemish on consecrated animals to be put to death?"

R. Yochanan (ben Zakkai) thereupon remarked: "Through the scrupulousness of R. Zechariah ben Abkulas, our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.""

Obviously, Bar Kamza and his enemy were engaged in something like baseless (or more accurately, disproportionate, hatred). (B.T. Gittin 55b-56b]

But our speaker focused more on R. Zechariah ben Abkulas. Zechariah was unwilling to see an impure animal offered up for sacrifice regardless of the impact of the refusal to sacrifice upon the Roman government. Thus, a war started, large numbers of people died, and the Temple was destroyed all because R. Zechariah and his colleagues were focused on a minor point of halacha. R. Zechariah's problem was not baseless hatred; there is no evidence from this story that he hated anyone. Rather, the problem is that his priorities were out of whack. He was more interested in the ritual purity of sacrifical animals than in avoiding war.

Here's another story from the same period (though it does not directly mention the war or the Second Temple's destruction).**

"It once happened that two priests were equal as they ran to mount the ramp [in the Temple to where priests removed ashes from sacrifical altars] and when one of them came first within four cubits of the altar, the other took a knife and thrust it into his heart . . . All the people burst out weeping. The father of the young man came and found him still in convulsions. He said 'May he be an atonement for you. My son is still in convlusions and the knife has not become unclean. [His remark] comes to teach you that the cleanness of their vessels was of greater concern to them even than the shedding of blood." (B.T. Yoma 23a-b]

In this story, two priests are racing to see who can remove ashes from an altar; one of the two stabs the other (apparently to prevent the latter from getting to the ashes first). The father of the victim, instead of mourning his son, points out that at least the knife is not ritually unclean (Why not? Because the son is not dead, so the knife is not rendered ritually impure by contact with a dead body). So even the father of the victim has his priorites out of whack- ritual purity is more interesting to him than the possibility that his son is dying.

Again, these stories suggest that the Jewish elite was more focused on ritual persnicketiness than on human life- and thus that such perverted priorities, rather than "hatred" was at the root of the Temple's destruction.

(My editorial comments, unrelated to the rabbi's): I wonder how this legend can be related to the historical reality that the war leading to the Temple's destruction was the result of an apparently different sin: Jews were stupid enough to believe that they could take on the Roman Empire and win.

One supernatural explanation might be that if Jews were more well-behaved, a Divine miracle would have saved them from the Romans.

A more naturalistic explanation might be that the revolt against Rome was itself a matter of perverted priorities: the rebels valued Jewish national independence over physical survival and the survival of the Temple. (It may*** even be the case that anti-Roman nationalists made halachic arguments for the rebellion- in which case the war may have been based on halacha gone amok, just like the examples of misconduct discussed above).


*According to the speaker (Rabbi Freundel of Kesher Israel)The Hebrew word in question does not literally mean "baseless" but merely "disproportionate."

**But nevertheless, according to the rabbi, we have good reason to believe that the story came from the waning years of the Second Temple, because it names people who OTHER stories suggest lived during that period.

***I emphasize the word "may"- I am not learned enough to have any idea whether this was the case.

Dvar Torah- Mase'ei
This week's Torah portion is one of my favorites, because it addresses my scholarly specialty: land use law.

God tells Moses to assign land to the Levites, and orders that "The town pasture that you are to assign to the Levites shall extend a thousand cubits outside the town wall all around. You shall measure off two thousand cubits outside the town . . . That shall be the pasture for their towns." (Numbers 35:4-5). The medieval commentator Rashi explains that the first thousand cubits around the town was for general open space and the second for pasture fields and vineyards.

In other words, the Levites must establish a "green belt" of pasture around their towns- seemingly the first recorded instance of urban growth boundaries. (I write about this law in more detail in a draft of my forthcoming article about sprawl and Judaism.)

An urban growth boundary (UGB) is a kind of line in the land prohibiting most or all suburban development outside of a regional greenbelt. Oregon has had UGBs since 1980 (see my article on Oregon's UGB - go here then search for 2002 Utah L. Rev. 1 at internal engine in upper right hand corner). For example, the Levites presumably could not build outside their UGB, the pasture land 1000 . Growth boundaries have been highly controversial; opponents allege that they violate developers' property rights. (See here for libertarian attacks on Oregon's policies and here for environmentalist defenses of Oregon's policies.)

But the Torah appears to endorse UGBs - or more broadly construed, endorses redevelopment within existing urban boundaries and discourages ever-expanding suburbia (or even ever-expanding urbia).

Obviously, 21st-century Americans aren't Levites, don't have walled cities, and most of us don't need cow pastures outside our cities. So Numbers 35:4-5 can't be applied literally.

But this portion does raise difficult questions- not just the substantive question of whether Americans should control sprawl through UGBs, but the broader question of the Torah's relevance to modern public policy. To what extent are Torah values relevant to government in a secular world?

I don't have an answer to this question- but it is a big and interesting question.

Dvar Torah - Mattot
This week's Torah portion contains one of the most ethically challenging and bizarre incidents in the Torah. The Hebrews fight a short war with Midian, kill the male soldiers, and are stuck with numerous women and children as prisoners of war (Numbers 31:9).

Moses asks his soldiers: "Did you allow all the females to live? They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord.* So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves. (Num. 31:15-18)."

At first glance, the portion suggests that our ancestors were engaging in Divinely-ordered casual genocide. But let's take a second look at the rest of the portion.

Nowhere is it mentioned that Moses's order is actually implemented. (Nor, for that matter, is it mentioned that God commanded this order). So maybe it didn't happen.**

Here's an alternative scenario:*** Moses is very old, has already been told he will not enter the Promised Land, and is probably a bit stressed out after realizing that he stood idly by while Midianite women seduced Hebrew men (a problem solved a couple of Torah portions ago at Num. 25 by Phineas, who kills a couple of malefactors and thereby causes everyone else to return to their senses). So maybe he flips out for a few minutes and says something he doesn't quite mean. Eventually, he returns to his senses, and the Midianites are sent off to take their chances in the wilderness or enslaved or something.****

The whole episode is more evidence that after 40 years of leadership, Moses is getting overly prone to fits of anger- another example of the evils of anger.


*NOTE: Moses is referring to a Midianite plot to have Midianite women sexually seduce Hebrew men and encourage them to engage in Midianite idol worship; the affair led to a plague - kind of a Biblical version of sexually transmitted diseases. See Numbers 25.

**NOTE - Counterargument alert: the list of the proceeds of the war includes 32,000 Midianite virgins (Num. 31:35) but not any non-virgins. This list could be interpreted to mean that all the non-virgins were killed- but it could also be interpreted to mean that non-virgins just weren't worth enough to be listed as plunder.

***NOTE: This is not a traditional explanation. My impression is that most traditional commentaries either defend Moses or try to mitigate Moses's conduct by suggesting that maybe not ALL the non-virgins were killed, just the ones engaged in the sex scandal. And of course, my explanation raises another difficulty: why doesn't the Torah say that the orders weren't carried out? A possible explanation- because Jews have generally not been powerful enough to run around committing genocide, the Torah's author thought that discouraging genocidal behavior was a lower priority than telling Jews not to engage in idolatry or mate with heathens.