“No. You are a Jewish girl who got mixed up in the culture of the heathen-Greco-Roman-America of today. Look what they use you for: to sell their soft-porn smut through reaching out to the lowest aspect of humanity and to make airports a place where mothers have to cover children's eyes. How many lascivious thoughts has your image evoked? How many jealous thoughts? How much wasting of time? How much degradation of values?...
…But you are not the only one to blame for this ignominious degradation. All those Orthodox Jews who take pride in having kosher hotdogs and a Maariv Minyan in Madison Square Garden - they too are to blame. Oh, they would claim that their worship of professional sports has nothing to do with your public exhibitionism. But it does, because both come from the same root; that is, the Greek and Roman fascination with the body. Is it a coincidence that Sports Illustrated caters to both the pro sports and the soft-porn crowd? Of course not, because both pro sports and soft-porn are flip sides of the same coin. What can one expect from the secular Jews when Orthodox Jews act like Hellenists?
…Orthodox Jews sitting in a stadium munching on kosher dogs while watching today's gladiators compete? This is not the stuff of a better world, nor the actions of a G-dly people…
…It is time for the Jewish people to end our addiction with animalism. It is time that we stop being the heads of foxes by helping the world plummet in its moral decline. Instead, it is time for us Jews to be the tails of lions, that is, to fulfill our role by being a "Light Unto The Nations" nation. The time has come to get up, shake off the dross of 2,000 years, and get to some real work. We have better images to put on the sides of airplanes and on magazine covers. We have a chance to make great things happen in this generation: to help breathe the breath of life back into a world that has chosen physicality over spirituality, and to remind mankind that we are all created in the image of G-d, and not vice-versa.”
This is an excerpt of an article by Yishai Fleisher which appeared on February 17, 2009 in Arutz Sheva. If you haven’t guessed, it was written in protest to Bar Rephaeli appearing on the cover of Sports Illustrated Magazine as well as having her image graced on the side of a Southwest airlines Boeing 737. The author while protesting the lack of tznius, revealed a warped and unhealthy resentment towards western culture to the point that it has corrupted his own understanding and appreciation of Jewish culture as it has evolved through the ages. Under normal circumstances I would have read the piece, chuckled and moved on. However, what I find most troubling is that Fleisher’s point of view is finding wider currency among a growing number of right wing orthodox Jews. He may be right about the lack of tznius but his condemnation of western values is not the answer and is therefore of great concern.
This growing community of people seems to equate sports with pornography, spirituality with a rejection of physical beauty. In rejecting the display of flesh in public they are throwing out the baby with the bath water. If there is anything sensual or erotic about an object d’ art it must be rejected. There is a display not only of intolerance but fanaticism that defies any logic, common sense and is indicative of a total lack of contextual understanding of our history and culture. His rant flies in the face of our tradition which offers ample examples of the balance and value we place on aesthetics. Parshat Terumah is a good example of that.
My intention here is not to use parshat Terumah to rationalize the behavior of any model or the display of oneself in an immodest manner. My intention is to contextualize our history and tradition and demonstrate how timely and beautiful it can be while appreciating physical beauty for what it is. Parshat Terumah begins with a description of gifts to be accepted in the building of the Tabernacle and its vessels. “And these are the gifts that you shall accept from them: gold silver and copper; blue purple and crimson yarns fine linen, goats’ hair; tanned ram skin, dolphin skins, and acacia wood.” (Exodus 25:3-5)
From this description one can assume that color, texture and materials were very important to the building of the Tabernacle. It teaches us too that physical beauty was something which ought to be appreciated. We give gifts of things that are precious to us. Obviously these gifts were highly prized and appreciated. The text underscores and encourages our appreciation of beautiful things. Indeed the aesthetics involved in the design of the structure was as important as the message emanating from it. Otherwise, why the detailed description in our text of the materials, colors and fabrics involved in the construction of the Tabernacle.
Over the centuries and perhaps because of the long exile the Jewish religious aesthetics lost its unique signature and adopted many of the art forms from other neighboring or host culture. During those periods and perhaps because of our experience in exile we shunned art forms that were pagan or Christian in nature, perhaps as a way of maintaining our unique culture and resisting assimilating into the neighboring culture. Our sages and rabbis however were wise and they were able to draw a qualitative line between enjoying art for the sake of its beauty and appreciating it for its religious value.
There is a Mishna in Talmud Avoda Zara that tells an interesting anecdote about Rabban Gamliel, president of the Sanhedrin who frequently bathed in the Aphrodite bathhouse in Acre. One of the pagans bathing there at the time that Rabban Gamliel was there asked him how it was that he was bathing in a place where there was a statue of Aphrodite. Rabban Gamliel answered him that one has to make the distinction between that which is important and that which is irrelevant as well as the intent of the statue. Had the statue been placed there for religious worship it wouldn’t have been permissible to bath there, but as it is there only for aesthetics it is permissible to bath there and to enjoy the aesthetics. This is a fascinating Mishnah because it demonstrates the balance in Rabban Gamliel’s approach to Jewish living, halacha and appreciating the Greco – Roman world of culture.
Rabbi Yosef Karo, editor of the Shulkan Aruch made a similar distinction when he said that statues in a small village aren’t to be viewed whereas those in larger cities are permissible. The reasoning being that those placed in a small village were done so for religious purposes and therefore a Jew isn’t allowed to get any pleasure from it. However those placed in larger cities were placed there for the purpose of art and aesthetics, not for religious purposes and therefore can be viewed for artistic appreciation.
It would appear that the ability of our sages and rabbis to make these fine distinctions in order to appreciate art and architecture of the ages has been lost on many of our 21st century rabbis and scholars. There is a trend as demonstrated by Fleisher and others towards a fanaticism that has no genuine grounding within our tradition. The ability to balance Jewish living and the world we live in was a talent that our rabbis and sages valued and honed. Unfortunately it is fast disappearing.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
A Muse: Terumah 2009
“And these are the gifts that you shall accept from them: gold silver and copper; blue purple and crimson yarns fine linen, goats’ hair; tanned ram skin, dolphin skins, and acacia wood.” (Exodus 25:3-5)
From these descriptions one can assume that color, texture and materials were very important to the building of the Tabernacle. Indeed the aesthetics involved in the design of the structure was as important as the message emanating from it. Otherwise, why the detailed description in our text of the materials, colors and fabrics involved in the construction of the Tabernacle.
Over the centuries and perhaps because of the long exile Jewish religious aesthetics lost its unique signature and adopted many of the art forms from other neighboring or host cultures. During that time and perhaps because of our experience in exile we shunned art forms that were pagan or Christian in nature, perhaps as a way of maintaining our unique culture and resisting assimilating into the neighboring culture. Our sages and rabbis however were wise and they were able to draw a substantive as well as qualitative line between enjoying art for the sake of its beauty and appreciating it for its religious value.
There is a Mishna in Talmud Avoda Zara that tells an interesting anecdote about Rabban Gamliel, president of the Sanhedrin who frequently bathed in the Aphrodite bathhouse in Acre. One of the pagans bathing there at the time as Rabban Gamliel asked him how it was that he was bathing in a place where there was a statue of Aphrodite. Rabban Gamliel answered him that one has to make the distinction between that which is important and that which is irrelevant as well as the intent of the statue. Had the statue been placed there for religious worship it wouldn’t have been permissible to bath there, but as it is there only for aesthetics it is permissible to bath there and to enjoy the aesthetics. Rabbi Yosef Karo, editor of the Shulkan Aruch made a similar distinction when he said that statues in a small village aren’t to be viewed whereas those in larger cities are permissible. The reasoning being that those placed in a small village were done so for religious purposes and therefore a Jew isn’t allowed to derive any pleasure from it. However those placed in larger cities were placed there for the purpose of art and aesthetics, not for religious purposes and therefore can be viewed for appreciation.
It would appear that the ability of our sages and rabbis to make these fine distinctions in order to appreciate art and architecture of the ages has been lost on many of our 21st century rabbis and scholars. This is evident by many of the chumras assumed by modern day poskim who forbid the touring of church architecture and religious art representing significant benchmarks in the development of art through the ages.
From these descriptions one can assume that color, texture and materials were very important to the building of the Tabernacle. Indeed the aesthetics involved in the design of the structure was as important as the message emanating from it. Otherwise, why the detailed description in our text of the materials, colors and fabrics involved in the construction of the Tabernacle.
Over the centuries and perhaps because of the long exile Jewish religious aesthetics lost its unique signature and adopted many of the art forms from other neighboring or host cultures. During that time and perhaps because of our experience in exile we shunned art forms that were pagan or Christian in nature, perhaps as a way of maintaining our unique culture and resisting assimilating into the neighboring culture. Our sages and rabbis however were wise and they were able to draw a substantive as well as qualitative line between enjoying art for the sake of its beauty and appreciating it for its religious value.
There is a Mishna in Talmud Avoda Zara that tells an interesting anecdote about Rabban Gamliel, president of the Sanhedrin who frequently bathed in the Aphrodite bathhouse in Acre. One of the pagans bathing there at the time as Rabban Gamliel asked him how it was that he was bathing in a place where there was a statue of Aphrodite. Rabban Gamliel answered him that one has to make the distinction between that which is important and that which is irrelevant as well as the intent of the statue. Had the statue been placed there for religious worship it wouldn’t have been permissible to bath there, but as it is there only for aesthetics it is permissible to bath there and to enjoy the aesthetics. Rabbi Yosef Karo, editor of the Shulkan Aruch made a similar distinction when he said that statues in a small village aren’t to be viewed whereas those in larger cities are permissible. The reasoning being that those placed in a small village were done so for religious purposes and therefore a Jew isn’t allowed to derive any pleasure from it. However those placed in larger cities were placed there for the purpose of art and aesthetics, not for religious purposes and therefore can be viewed for appreciation.
It would appear that the ability of our sages and rabbis to make these fine distinctions in order to appreciate art and architecture of the ages has been lost on many of our 21st century rabbis and scholars. This is evident by many of the chumras assumed by modern day poskim who forbid the touring of church architecture and religious art representing significant benchmarks in the development of art through the ages.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Habinyan Hamekulal (The Cursed Building)
This past February Ynet ran an article about whether or not a particular building in Jerusalem was cursed. The article immediately drew my attention because it reminded me of the Binyan Hemkulal in the Jerusalem Mahane Yehudah area on Rechov Agripas. About thirty years ago a contractor had the idea of building an office building at the corner of Agripas and Shiloh. The building was never a success. For decades the building stood empty and people referred to it as the “bayit hamekulal”. So naturally when I was scanning the different news outlets, this particular headline Jerusalem – Is This Building Cursed?, jumped out at me.
According to the article disaster had struck the Jerusalem apartment building three times in the past year, when three people died of cancer. All three happened to have been fathers and heads of households. The apartment complex tenants concerned that the building may be cursed sought advice from none other than Harav Aharon Shteinman (one of the leaders of the haredi Degel Hatorah political party and formerly the head of the kollel of Ponovezh), explaining to him their concerns that the building may have a hex on it, thus seeking to remedy the problem. Harav Shteinman reassured the tenants that “buildings do not kill people”. However, he did add that the tenants should do some soul searching to assess why it was that disaster struck so close to home. The implication being that perhaps they were in some way responsible for the misfortune striking at heir building. They then consulted another rabbi, Menachem Fuchs for help on how to begin the process of soul searching and he suggested that they attend instructional classes on “shemirat halashon.” This I found terribly troubling.
It assumes the worst. It assumes that God is cruel and punishes good people for one reason or another. It’s suggesting that the punishment is proportionate to the misdeed. Theologically this is uncomfortable because it presents a series of assumptions that aren’t necessarily black and white. Reward and punishment, collective punishment and collective guilt are serious matters as well as the concern of where does evil originate. Is evil of God or is it as a result of his absence? These are all legitimate questions and concerns in Jewish philosophy and there aren’t any easy answers. It also assumes that we are responsible for our own destiny. It assumes that if we behave and do all the right things everything will be ok. It assumes that if we follow all the teachings of our rabbis and are punctilious in following the mitzvoth than we will be protected from bad things.
Of course, this approach begs the question why is it that so many wonderfully good people suffer from tragedies, while others who seem to be not terribly righteous thrive? There are no answers, nor do rabbis Shteinman or Fuchs have the answers. Their insinuation that those tenants need to do some soul searching or pay closer attention to shemirat halashon is part of the haredi rabbinic culture of manipulation and control. By suggesting that they do some soul searching automatically assigns guilt to these people. That because their behavior fell short of righteousness heavenly retribution was brought upon the building.
Keeping people in a state of guilt is a classic method of maintaining control over them. It sort of reminds me of the three visitors who came to console Job with advice that wasn’t too well received not by Job and certainly not by God. Job was tormented but he didn’t blame himself or others around him. He challenged God. His consolers on the other hand used the classic means of guilt and self recrimination – that it is “us who must have done something wrong”. If nothing else, rabbis Shteinmen and Fuchs ought to study the Book of Job and worry less about shemirat halashon.
According to the article disaster had struck the Jerusalem apartment building three times in the past year, when three people died of cancer. All three happened to have been fathers and heads of households. The apartment complex tenants concerned that the building may be cursed sought advice from none other than Harav Aharon Shteinman (one of the leaders of the haredi Degel Hatorah political party and formerly the head of the kollel of Ponovezh), explaining to him their concerns that the building may have a hex on it, thus seeking to remedy the problem. Harav Shteinman reassured the tenants that “buildings do not kill people”. However, he did add that the tenants should do some soul searching to assess why it was that disaster struck so close to home. The implication being that perhaps they were in some way responsible for the misfortune striking at heir building. They then consulted another rabbi, Menachem Fuchs for help on how to begin the process of soul searching and he suggested that they attend instructional classes on “shemirat halashon.” This I found terribly troubling.
It assumes the worst. It assumes that God is cruel and punishes good people for one reason or another. It’s suggesting that the punishment is proportionate to the misdeed. Theologically this is uncomfortable because it presents a series of assumptions that aren’t necessarily black and white. Reward and punishment, collective punishment and collective guilt are serious matters as well as the concern of where does evil originate. Is evil of God or is it as a result of his absence? These are all legitimate questions and concerns in Jewish philosophy and there aren’t any easy answers. It also assumes that we are responsible for our own destiny. It assumes that if we behave and do all the right things everything will be ok. It assumes that if we follow all the teachings of our rabbis and are punctilious in following the mitzvoth than we will be protected from bad things.
Of course, this approach begs the question why is it that so many wonderfully good people suffer from tragedies, while others who seem to be not terribly righteous thrive? There are no answers, nor do rabbis Shteinman or Fuchs have the answers. Their insinuation that those tenants need to do some soul searching or pay closer attention to shemirat halashon is part of the haredi rabbinic culture of manipulation and control. By suggesting that they do some soul searching automatically assigns guilt to these people. That because their behavior fell short of righteousness heavenly retribution was brought upon the building.
Keeping people in a state of guilt is a classic method of maintaining control over them. It sort of reminds me of the three visitors who came to console Job with advice that wasn’t too well received not by Job and certainly not by God. Job was tormented but he didn’t blame himself or others around him. He challenged God. His consolers on the other hand used the classic means of guilt and self recrimination – that it is “us who must have done something wrong”. If nothing else, rabbis Shteinmen and Fuchs ought to study the Book of Job and worry less about shemirat halashon.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
A Muse: Mishpatim 2009
Mishpatim is a fascinating portion in that it is the foundation of hilchot nizikin. However when examining the text and then studying the relevant Mishna and Talmud, there seems to be a total disconnect. Understanding the commandment of an “eye for an eye”, through the lens of the Mishna and Talmud, means financial compensation based upon pain, damage, medical expenses and humiliation. Or when to begin the counting of the Omer so as to have the exact dating of the celebration of Shavuot is dependent on whether you understand the text literally or interpretively.
The oral tradition is what gives to the rabbis the ability to interpret text and keep it relevant to us Jews of the 21st century. To say that the oral law is the authorized interpretation of the written law is erroneous. To make this assumption would be to proscribe the rabbis’ ability to make halacha current. In essence it would ossify halacha. Halacha, by definition refers to movement. It assumes that our world is dynamic and ever changing requiring the constant upgrading of halacha. Oral Torah wasn’t originally intended t be written because the sages were afraid that the written word would prevail, limiting subsequent generations from making appropriate adjustments. The Ketzot Hachoshen, a commentary on Shulchan Aruch writes that rabbis have the right and obligation to rule in accordance with their understanding of Torah. We were given Torah to use as we understand it; for God didn’t give us everyday halacha – He left it to us to figure that out.
Thus rabbinic Judaism understands the oral tradition to be autonomous of the written Torah, relying upon, but it is the oral torah that ultimately will decide halacha. It is therefore our responsibility to study it, develop it and apply it in accordance with our understanding, contouring it to the circumstances that we live in.
The oral tradition is what gives to the rabbis the ability to interpret text and keep it relevant to us Jews of the 21st century. To say that the oral law is the authorized interpretation of the written law is erroneous. To make this assumption would be to proscribe the rabbis’ ability to make halacha current. In essence it would ossify halacha. Halacha, by definition refers to movement. It assumes that our world is dynamic and ever changing requiring the constant upgrading of halacha. Oral Torah wasn’t originally intended t be written because the sages were afraid that the written word would prevail, limiting subsequent generations from making appropriate adjustments. The Ketzot Hachoshen, a commentary on Shulchan Aruch writes that rabbis have the right and obligation to rule in accordance with their understanding of Torah. We were given Torah to use as we understand it; for God didn’t give us everyday halacha – He left it to us to figure that out.
Thus rabbinic Judaism understands the oral tradition to be autonomous of the written Torah, relying upon, but it is the oral torah that ultimately will decide halacha. It is therefore our responsibility to study it, develop it and apply it in accordance with our understanding, contouring it to the circumstances that we live in.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Black Madonna
You know times are changing when Chabad – Lubavitch clergy are allowed to wander around freely advanced basis where soldiers are preparing themselves for battle. There was a time when the IDF Rabbinate was charged with the task of making sure the kitchens were kosher and that there were services on Shabbat. They were functionaries, little bureaucrats - a reflection of the greater rabbinate in the general Israeli community. Rarely would anyone approach them for anything other than to perform a ritual such as wedding, brit, funeral and maybe a pidyon haben. They aren’t trained in pastoral care as clergy are in the U.S., nor are they trained in marriage counseling or chaplaincy. They don’t visit the sick in hospitals as part of their job description, nor hold the hand of the sick prior to surgery. But for some odd reason, these untrained clergy have been allowed to peddle their brand of Judaism to vulnerable soldiers in their final moments at staging basis before going out to do battle.
What could these “shluchim” be telling our chayalim in those moments before battle. What could they possibly be saying to them, to offer them encouragement and hope. How are they helping these chayalim in coping with fear and the unkown. These shluchim not having been trained in chaplaincy are in fact pandering religion to chayalim at their most vulnerable moment reducing them to nothing more than a challenge for the chabad shaliach. How many can he influence is the game they pay, the same game played by evangelists and missionaries operating in Africa or Asia.
Then there is another phenomenon: the mystical believers, the very same who believe in spiritual icons such as the Baba Sali and other highly questionable “mekubalim”, placing their faith in amulets and other “segulas”. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with approaching Judaism from the mystical side, studying Kabbalah and consulting with “mekubalim” as long as they are understood within the overall general context of Jewish practice. When it becomes, however, the primary post upon which Jewish values and faith is pivoted there is a serious distortion. Imagine a young unseasoned frightened chayal going to battle for the first time, having grown up in a secular environment and being confronted with his worst fears, mortality and a “mekubal based” missionary approaches him. It strikes me that there is an element of exploitation or perhaps even spiritual / emotional abuse.
These phenomenon which I have pointed out aren’t isolated incidents but have become quite rampant. It is so prevalent that during the height of the Gaza incursion this past January 2009, a story was told about two chayalim who encountered none other than “Rachel Emeinu”, the matriarch Rachel. According to the story, the chayalim were on a mission in Gaza City and approached an intersection but didn’t know which way to go. They saw a woman in black from head to toe standing there pointing to a direction which they should go. Reluctantly following her direction they were delivered to safety, for a few moments later they heard an explosion coming from the other road. The two chayalim came back and asked her name and she replied “I am the matriarch Rachel”. Obviously, the story sounds a little phony. This genre isn’t really part of the spiritual or metaphysical Jewish tradition. Furthermore, why is it that typically, this genre of story has the apparition always in black? Unfortunately, the picture conjured up here is the medieval imagery of the Black Madonna. This story was all over the internet and became a sensational story throughout Israel. It was so popular and so believed that some of the most distinguished rabbis in Israel were consulted as to its veracity.
If it wasn’t so sad I would find this quite amusing, because ultimately the truth always emerges. What is important here isn’t whether this rabbi or that rabbi believed the story. No, what was interesting was the comments of one well respected “mekubal” who had the audacity to say that “Rachel Emeinu” would never appear for the sake of a secular Jew. And there, my friends, is the rub! That is the true feeling of so many of those missionaries out there in our advanced staging camps. They have no real compassion for the chayal – they are more interested in saving his soul, in “turning” him, in making him frum. And what better way to do this than by exploiting his fears and vulnerability before going to battle. How sad and how pathetic.
What could these “shluchim” be telling our chayalim in those moments before battle. What could they possibly be saying to them, to offer them encouragement and hope. How are they helping these chayalim in coping with fear and the unkown. These shluchim not having been trained in chaplaincy are in fact pandering religion to chayalim at their most vulnerable moment reducing them to nothing more than a challenge for the chabad shaliach. How many can he influence is the game they pay, the same game played by evangelists and missionaries operating in Africa or Asia.
Then there is another phenomenon: the mystical believers, the very same who believe in spiritual icons such as the Baba Sali and other highly questionable “mekubalim”, placing their faith in amulets and other “segulas”. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with approaching Judaism from the mystical side, studying Kabbalah and consulting with “mekubalim” as long as they are understood within the overall general context of Jewish practice. When it becomes, however, the primary post upon which Jewish values and faith is pivoted there is a serious distortion. Imagine a young unseasoned frightened chayal going to battle for the first time, having grown up in a secular environment and being confronted with his worst fears, mortality and a “mekubal based” missionary approaches him. It strikes me that there is an element of exploitation or perhaps even spiritual / emotional abuse.
These phenomenon which I have pointed out aren’t isolated incidents but have become quite rampant. It is so prevalent that during the height of the Gaza incursion this past January 2009, a story was told about two chayalim who encountered none other than “Rachel Emeinu”, the matriarch Rachel. According to the story, the chayalim were on a mission in Gaza City and approached an intersection but didn’t know which way to go. They saw a woman in black from head to toe standing there pointing to a direction which they should go. Reluctantly following her direction they were delivered to safety, for a few moments later they heard an explosion coming from the other road. The two chayalim came back and asked her name and she replied “I am the matriarch Rachel”. Obviously, the story sounds a little phony. This genre isn’t really part of the spiritual or metaphysical Jewish tradition. Furthermore, why is it that typically, this genre of story has the apparition always in black? Unfortunately, the picture conjured up here is the medieval imagery of the Black Madonna. This story was all over the internet and became a sensational story throughout Israel. It was so popular and so believed that some of the most distinguished rabbis in Israel were consulted as to its veracity.
If it wasn’t so sad I would find this quite amusing, because ultimately the truth always emerges. What is important here isn’t whether this rabbi or that rabbi believed the story. No, what was interesting was the comments of one well respected “mekubal” who had the audacity to say that “Rachel Emeinu” would never appear for the sake of a secular Jew. And there, my friends, is the rub! That is the true feeling of so many of those missionaries out there in our advanced staging camps. They have no real compassion for the chayal – they are more interested in saving his soul, in “turning” him, in making him frum. And what better way to do this than by exploiting his fears and vulnerability before going to battle. How sad and how pathetic.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
A Muse: Yitro 2009
The two significant themes of Parshat Yitro is the meeting between Moshe and his father-in-law, Yitro, and the giving of the Tern Commandments. Parshat Yitro is also the segue between the Hebrews leaving Egypt as freed slaves, refugees without a homeland, stateless and on the road to becoming a nation.
One of the most dramatic moments in human history is about to occur; the giving of the Law, the Ten Commandments. Yet in the midst of preparing for this epiphany, this most holy of moments we are introduced at great length and detail to the visit of Yitro. No mention is made of Moshe’s relationship with his wife or two sons. All we are provided with is a somewhat cordial meeting of these two men which ultimately centered on a discussion of Moshe’s challenge in governing the Hebrews.
In their conversation Moshe explains to Yitro that he is governing his people according to the laws of God and the Torah. However, the Law has still not been give! So it would appear that the visit between the two men is out of chronological order. Perhaps the visit was after the Law was given. Yet the Torah places the meeting prior to the Sinaitic experience.
Another observation which this text presents is the relationship that God exhibits with the Hebrews as discussed in an earlier muse: the exodus from Egypt was as a result of God’s election and not the choice or by consensus of the Hebrews. God acted b’chipazon and out of concern in order to prevent the Hebrews from slipping down to the 49the rung of spiritual contamination. The Hebrews, if anything were reluctant and resistant to leave Egypt. The four terms of redemption as symbolized by the four cups of wine on Passover suggests this. However, when it came to the giving of the Law God insisted that there had to be consensus and agreement of the Hebrews as evident by the fact that the Hebrews said “naaseh v’nishma”.
Oftentimes the contrast is made between the exodus from Egypt and the trek in the desert. Leaving the urban culture for a desert life of forty years was the method by which the national character of the Hebrews would be forged. Perhaps instead we ought to contrast the pyramids of Egypt with the epiphany at Sinai. The pyramids were sophisticated towers of Babel; linear geometric lines defining its space as well as outlining its limitations. Sinai on the other hand is a low lying mountain with a circle of people surrounding its contours. Unlike a linear geometric configuration defining its space the circle around Sinai wasn’t defined with a beginning or end point, with no gradations of height. All the people are on the same level, all with the same access to holiness. The midrash comments that while the tablets were etched the word “charoot” can easily be read as “cherut”, freedom; that is, freedom tablets. Those tablets, the law, were intended as a gift not only to the Hebrews but to humanity. And so it would appear that Yitro, representing the greater civilized world was invited to witness that most holy of moments.
One of the most dramatic moments in human history is about to occur; the giving of the Law, the Ten Commandments. Yet in the midst of preparing for this epiphany, this most holy of moments we are introduced at great length and detail to the visit of Yitro. No mention is made of Moshe’s relationship with his wife or two sons. All we are provided with is a somewhat cordial meeting of these two men which ultimately centered on a discussion of Moshe’s challenge in governing the Hebrews.
In their conversation Moshe explains to Yitro that he is governing his people according to the laws of God and the Torah. However, the Law has still not been give! So it would appear that the visit between the two men is out of chronological order. Perhaps the visit was after the Law was given. Yet the Torah places the meeting prior to the Sinaitic experience.
Another observation which this text presents is the relationship that God exhibits with the Hebrews as discussed in an earlier muse: the exodus from Egypt was as a result of God’s election and not the choice or by consensus of the Hebrews. God acted b’chipazon and out of concern in order to prevent the Hebrews from slipping down to the 49the rung of spiritual contamination. The Hebrews, if anything were reluctant and resistant to leave Egypt. The four terms of redemption as symbolized by the four cups of wine on Passover suggests this. However, when it came to the giving of the Law God insisted that there had to be consensus and agreement of the Hebrews as evident by the fact that the Hebrews said “naaseh v’nishma”.
Oftentimes the contrast is made between the exodus from Egypt and the trek in the desert. Leaving the urban culture for a desert life of forty years was the method by which the national character of the Hebrews would be forged. Perhaps instead we ought to contrast the pyramids of Egypt with the epiphany at Sinai. The pyramids were sophisticated towers of Babel; linear geometric lines defining its space as well as outlining its limitations. Sinai on the other hand is a low lying mountain with a circle of people surrounding its contours. Unlike a linear geometric configuration defining its space the circle around Sinai wasn’t defined with a beginning or end point, with no gradations of height. All the people are on the same level, all with the same access to holiness. The midrash comments that while the tablets were etched the word “charoot” can easily be read as “cherut”, freedom; that is, freedom tablets. Those tablets, the law, were intended as a gift not only to the Hebrews but to humanity. And so it would appear that Yitro, representing the greater civilized world was invited to witness that most holy of moments.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Jews – An Endangered Species by Tamar Siegel
My daughter, the subject of an earlier essay entitled Educating Tami recently wrote this essay and asked that I post it.
*************************************************************************************
Lately I have been obsessing over the Polar Bears. They are on the Endangered Species List, as they should be. They are loosing their natural habitat due to Global warming as well as been hunted down as their numbers decline practically to the point of no return. I’ve been thinking a lot about Polar Bears because as the war in Gaza progressed with few casualties among the IDF but high numbers amongst the Palestinians living in Gaza I noticed a rise in anti-Israel rhetoric. Why that triggered in my psyche an obsessive focusing on Polar Bears is obvious. We too are fast becoming, an endangered species.
I realize that the Endangered Species Act refers to fish and wildlife. I do believe, however that Jews or should I say the Jewish people ought to be included, even though we are members of the human race. We care so much for all those species that have been endangered either because of environmental changes that threaten habitats or because humans have been recklessly abusing the wonderful gifts of nature by hunting them down to perilous low numbers.
There is precedent for placing humans on the Endangered Species List. You may recall that after the Holocaust there was a spate of laws and good will directed toward the physical rehabilitation of the remnants of the Jewish People. Europeans became more tolerant; with a tendency toward national introspection as to how could something like this happen in sophisticated and civilized Europe. They even legislated away anti-Semitism, and were supportive of a Jewish state. Israel is a product of the United Nations, backed and supported by the Europeans and Americans.
It was because of the massive European / American support and approval of a Jewish state and their goodwill towards the Jewish people that the rehabilitation of an almost extinct people was successful. We were on the Endangered Species List of a unique kind; yet because of it we were able to rebuild, reclaim and rehabilitate ourselves – but never our numbers. The six million that were lost and those generations that would have sprung forth from them will never be. We are in a deficit growth and that deficit is growing exponentially annually.
Believe it or not, the Jewish People are still in the midst of a national rehabilitation and can’t tolerate very well attrition on its numbers or safety. So when the rockets from Gaza would not stop it made perfect sense that we would have to silence them. Prior to his election, Barack Obama said that if his family was exposed to a bombardment of rockets, he would do everything in his power to stop such attack. Nevertheless, in years past, there has been criticism leveled against Israel for assuming a robust defensive posture; today however it is not only not tolerated but the tone of those objecting to Israel’s position on security needs has become downright dirty and anti-Semitic. We are off the Endangered Species List and it seems that they want to be done with us – as quickly and as neatly as possible.
The anti Israel rhetoric is really just a ruse. It really is anti Semitism and for several reasons: The languages of the protests aren’t only against Israel’s incursion into Gaza, but also referencing the need to put us in the gas chambers and finish the work of Hitler. A U.N. investigator, Richard Falk, had the audacity to equate the IDF to the Nazi's and Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. That is the all time cosmic joke: We who seek to protect our borders from rockets randomly targeting our population centers are now being compared to Nazis who hunted down and gassed Jews. If it wasn’t so serious I would call it a joke emanating from Chelm. But wait: Jews world wide are targeted for the defensive incursion of the IDF! If that isn’t anti Semitic what is?
But there are other indicators that we are off the Endangered Species List: the double standard that the world has chosen to apply to Israel. Alan M. Dershowitz, an eminent author and lawyer, has written various articles on the subject matter. The overriding message in these works is, "Israel is the only democracy in the world ever accused of war crimes when it fights a defensive war to protect its civilians [...] in light of the fact that Israel has killed far less civilians than any other country in the world that has faced comparable threats." One of the more blatant examples of this double standard is the recent war waged by Russia against Chechnya. Russians willfully killed thousands of civilians, but the academics who lambast Israel as Nazis have never called for a war crimes tribunal against them, yet they are quick to call them for Israel. Where were the riots and protests in the streets of Europe and Arab countries when thousands of civilians were murdered in Rwanda or Darfur? It took the lone voice of George Clooney to bring attention to the mass murder in Darfur. The double standard is alive and well and the Jews are definitely off the Endangered Species List.
It is quite remarkable that as the Jewish people are omitted from the list, the Palestinians have now replaced them. I frequently have political conversations with various people I come in contact and of course, the "situation" in Israel often surfaces. Much to my dismay, I find that many liberals are lamenting the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza who took a "beating" from the Israelis. This is ironic however, because as seen in the political cartoon, the Palestinian people are putting themselves in danger. Hamas uses their children as human shields. Typically mosques, schools and medical teams are immune from attacks. Nevertheless, when Hamas uses their holy sites for weapon storage, hospitals as their headquarters, and places military targets adjacent to the presence of children, all immunity is lost (Robbie Sabel, legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry). Despite this, Israel has still refrained from attacking hospitals because of civilian casualties. Also, Israel has never attacked a school knowing children were there.
Israel has been attacked with around 700 rockets since the fighting has begun, and still it has been accused of using disproportionate force. This is a ludicrous allegation because in a conflict such as this, an army has the right to destroy the enemy's armed forces. In addition, Ambassador Dore Gold has affirmed that "according to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according the size and range of weaponry used against it."
It is evident that although the Jewish people are still an "endangered species", they have not only lost their spot on the list, but they are now being condemned for protecting themselves. We now have to look out for ourselves; to nurture ourselves; to rehabilitate ourselves. Jewish blood is very expensive. It’s really a question o f supply and demand. There are so few Jews in the world that our blood has premium value. Spilling Jewish blood will cost a lot. If a radical Muslim thinks he can attempt to eradicate the Jewish people or the State of Israel without paying a high price he is sadly mistaken. That lesson was learned in Lebanon and I believe was learned the hard way in Gaza.
*************************************************************************************
Lately I have been obsessing over the Polar Bears. They are on the Endangered Species List, as they should be. They are loosing their natural habitat due to Global warming as well as been hunted down as their numbers decline practically to the point of no return. I’ve been thinking a lot about Polar Bears because as the war in Gaza progressed with few casualties among the IDF but high numbers amongst the Palestinians living in Gaza I noticed a rise in anti-Israel rhetoric. Why that triggered in my psyche an obsessive focusing on Polar Bears is obvious. We too are fast becoming, an endangered species.
I realize that the Endangered Species Act refers to fish and wildlife. I do believe, however that Jews or should I say the Jewish people ought to be included, even though we are members of the human race. We care so much for all those species that have been endangered either because of environmental changes that threaten habitats or because humans have been recklessly abusing the wonderful gifts of nature by hunting them down to perilous low numbers.
There is precedent for placing humans on the Endangered Species List. You may recall that after the Holocaust there was a spate of laws and good will directed toward the physical rehabilitation of the remnants of the Jewish People. Europeans became more tolerant; with a tendency toward national introspection as to how could something like this happen in sophisticated and civilized Europe. They even legislated away anti-Semitism, and were supportive of a Jewish state. Israel is a product of the United Nations, backed and supported by the Europeans and Americans.
It was because of the massive European / American support and approval of a Jewish state and their goodwill towards the Jewish people that the rehabilitation of an almost extinct people was successful. We were on the Endangered Species List of a unique kind; yet because of it we were able to rebuild, reclaim and rehabilitate ourselves – but never our numbers. The six million that were lost and those generations that would have sprung forth from them will never be. We are in a deficit growth and that deficit is growing exponentially annually.
Believe it or not, the Jewish People are still in the midst of a national rehabilitation and can’t tolerate very well attrition on its numbers or safety. So when the rockets from Gaza would not stop it made perfect sense that we would have to silence them. Prior to his election, Barack Obama said that if his family was exposed to a bombardment of rockets, he would do everything in his power to stop such attack. Nevertheless, in years past, there has been criticism leveled against Israel for assuming a robust defensive posture; today however it is not only not tolerated but the tone of those objecting to Israel’s position on security needs has become downright dirty and anti-Semitic. We are off the Endangered Species List and it seems that they want to be done with us – as quickly and as neatly as possible.
The anti Israel rhetoric is really just a ruse. It really is anti Semitism and for several reasons: The languages of the protests aren’t only against Israel’s incursion into Gaza, but also referencing the need to put us in the gas chambers and finish the work of Hitler. A U.N. investigator, Richard Falk, had the audacity to equate the IDF to the Nazi's and Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. That is the all time cosmic joke: We who seek to protect our borders from rockets randomly targeting our population centers are now being compared to Nazis who hunted down and gassed Jews. If it wasn’t so serious I would call it a joke emanating from Chelm. But wait: Jews world wide are targeted for the defensive incursion of the IDF! If that isn’t anti Semitic what is?
But there are other indicators that we are off the Endangered Species List: the double standard that the world has chosen to apply to Israel. Alan M. Dershowitz, an eminent author and lawyer, has written various articles on the subject matter. The overriding message in these works is, "Israel is the only democracy in the world ever accused of war crimes when it fights a defensive war to protect its civilians [...] in light of the fact that Israel has killed far less civilians than any other country in the world that has faced comparable threats." One of the more blatant examples of this double standard is the recent war waged by Russia against Chechnya. Russians willfully killed thousands of civilians, but the academics who lambast Israel as Nazis have never called for a war crimes tribunal against them, yet they are quick to call them for Israel. Where were the riots and protests in the streets of Europe and Arab countries when thousands of civilians were murdered in Rwanda or Darfur? It took the lone voice of George Clooney to bring attention to the mass murder in Darfur. The double standard is alive and well and the Jews are definitely off the Endangered Species List.
It is quite remarkable that as the Jewish people are omitted from the list, the Palestinians have now replaced them. I frequently have political conversations with various people I come in contact and of course, the "situation" in Israel often surfaces. Much to my dismay, I find that many liberals are lamenting the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza who took a "beating" from the Israelis. This is ironic however, because as seen in the political cartoon, the Palestinian people are putting themselves in danger. Hamas uses their children as human shields. Typically mosques, schools and medical teams are immune from attacks. Nevertheless, when Hamas uses their holy sites for weapon storage, hospitals as their headquarters, and places military targets adjacent to the presence of children, all immunity is lost (Robbie Sabel, legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry). Despite this, Israel has still refrained from attacking hospitals because of civilian casualties. Also, Israel has never attacked a school knowing children were there.
Israel has been attacked with around 700 rockets since the fighting has begun, and still it has been accused of using disproportionate force. This is a ludicrous allegation because in a conflict such as this, an army has the right to destroy the enemy's armed forces. In addition, Ambassador Dore Gold has affirmed that "according to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according the size and range of weaponry used against it."
It is evident that although the Jewish people are still an "endangered species", they have not only lost their spot on the list, but they are now being condemned for protecting themselves. We now have to look out for ourselves; to nurture ourselves; to rehabilitate ourselves. Jewish blood is very expensive. It’s really a question o f supply and demand. There are so few Jews in the world that our blood has premium value. Spilling Jewish blood will cost a lot. If a radical Muslim thinks he can attempt to eradicate the Jewish people or the State of Israel without paying a high price he is sadly mistaken. That lesson was learned in Lebanon and I believe was learned the hard way in Gaza.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
A Muse: Beshalach 2009
Beshalach is the central portion where exodus of the Israelites from Egypt play out; where according to midrash 600,000 souls left Egypt on the night between the 14th and 15th of Nissan. While we have been celebrating the exodus story for centuries and so much of our liturgy celebrates the miraculous events leading up to the exodus including the plagues, there are many who do not believe it was by the “hand” of God. In fact there is an entire school of thought supported by some celebrated Israeli archeologists that there never was an exodus for Egypt. The effort to convince those who are skeptical is in vain since for every argument for the intervention of God there are arguments that can be leveled against those arguments. In the end it boils down to faith. And faith is something that can’t be argued with.
However, whether you believe the freedom story to be fact or fable the exodus story has become part of the national conscience of the Jewish people. For those with faith, the event took place as is stated in the text, and nothing more needs to be said. For those who don’t believe the events as told in the Bible it is enough to invoke the “big lie” theory. A lie repeated enough times will be believed. The exodus story certainly has become part and parcel of the Jewish psyche so whether or not one believes the story is irrelevant to what can be learned from it. From the Biblical account it is apparent that the spiritual gap between the generation that entered Egypt and the generation leaving Egypt was so great that there was virtually no remaining legacy from their forefathers. In fact and as was commented last week there was even the discontinuation of circumcision. They had no idea who their God was or who the God of their forefathers was. The proof is in the fact that God had to present miracles in order to convince the Israelites as to the power of God. Furthermore, Moses was skeptical about any of the Israelites remembering or believing in the God of their forefathers.
The effort that God made in delivering the Israelites was far greater than the effort of the Israelites themselves in extracting themselves from their slavery. It would appear then than the Israelites weren’t as interested in serving their God as much as God was in need of being served. Indeed throughout their trek the Bible rarely hints at a time when there was any joy among the Israelites, except when the Egyptians were drown in the Sea of Reeds. Beyond that there aren’t any demonstrative elements of joy. There are those who reach the conclusion that the Israelites were forced out of Egypt by God and the “chipazon” was referring to God and not the Israelites. In other words, God was in a hurry to redeem the Israelites; the Hebrews were in no particular rush. In fact the Talmud comments that the Hebrews were quickly approaching the 49th rung of spiritual contamination, and God was deeply concerned that they would have to be redeemed in a hurry before they reached the point of no return.
There are many parallels that can be drawn from these observations when analyzing the state of the Jewish community today whether in Israel or abroad.One example that comes to mind is the profile of Moshe. Here was a man an outsider, who didn’t come from the “people” or experience their suffering. He came from the house of Pharaoh and was married to a Midianite. Theodor Herzl too was a man from the outside who didn’t experience the suffering of the Eastern European Jews, those Jews who he thought he was redeeming.
One can also reference the exodus story as an analogy that has universal appeal. There is a syndrome where people having been denied freedom for so long are afraid of it and therefore may declare “I love my master”. Our text of course deals with this in detail, but it is also something we have witnessed in the twentieth century. Fascism and communism are two examples of people denied freedom for so long opt for a political system that again denies them their fundamental freedoms. Another universal truth dealt with in the exodus story is the appeal and pull materialism has on people in exchange for following their dreams and ideals. The Israelites were willing to turn back to the “flesh pots” of Egypt rather than pursue their dreams of their own country and freedom. Have we witnessed that again in the twentieth century with the birth of Israel; the reluctance and resistance of American Jews to trade their desire for material comforts in order to live in their own country as free and proud Jews?
However, whether you believe the freedom story to be fact or fable the exodus story has become part of the national conscience of the Jewish people. For those with faith, the event took place as is stated in the text, and nothing more needs to be said. For those who don’t believe the events as told in the Bible it is enough to invoke the “big lie” theory. A lie repeated enough times will be believed. The exodus story certainly has become part and parcel of the Jewish psyche so whether or not one believes the story is irrelevant to what can be learned from it. From the Biblical account it is apparent that the spiritual gap between the generation that entered Egypt and the generation leaving Egypt was so great that there was virtually no remaining legacy from their forefathers. In fact and as was commented last week there was even the discontinuation of circumcision. They had no idea who their God was or who the God of their forefathers was. The proof is in the fact that God had to present miracles in order to convince the Israelites as to the power of God. Furthermore, Moses was skeptical about any of the Israelites remembering or believing in the God of their forefathers.
The effort that God made in delivering the Israelites was far greater than the effort of the Israelites themselves in extracting themselves from their slavery. It would appear then than the Israelites weren’t as interested in serving their God as much as God was in need of being served. Indeed throughout their trek the Bible rarely hints at a time when there was any joy among the Israelites, except when the Egyptians were drown in the Sea of Reeds. Beyond that there aren’t any demonstrative elements of joy. There are those who reach the conclusion that the Israelites were forced out of Egypt by God and the “chipazon” was referring to God and not the Israelites. In other words, God was in a hurry to redeem the Israelites; the Hebrews were in no particular rush. In fact the Talmud comments that the Hebrews were quickly approaching the 49th rung of spiritual contamination, and God was deeply concerned that they would have to be redeemed in a hurry before they reached the point of no return.
There are many parallels that can be drawn from these observations when analyzing the state of the Jewish community today whether in Israel or abroad.One example that comes to mind is the profile of Moshe. Here was a man an outsider, who didn’t come from the “people” or experience their suffering. He came from the house of Pharaoh and was married to a Midianite. Theodor Herzl too was a man from the outside who didn’t experience the suffering of the Eastern European Jews, those Jews who he thought he was redeeming.
One can also reference the exodus story as an analogy that has universal appeal. There is a syndrome where people having been denied freedom for so long are afraid of it and therefore may declare “I love my master”. Our text of course deals with this in detail, but it is also something we have witnessed in the twentieth century. Fascism and communism are two examples of people denied freedom for so long opt for a political system that again denies them their fundamental freedoms. Another universal truth dealt with in the exodus story is the appeal and pull materialism has on people in exchange for following their dreams and ideals. The Israelites were willing to turn back to the “flesh pots” of Egypt rather than pursue their dreams of their own country and freedom. Have we witnessed that again in the twentieth century with the birth of Israel; the reluctance and resistance of American Jews to trade their desire for material comforts in order to live in their own country as free and proud Jews?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
