Aside from the regular teaching I, on Thursday evenings, teach an extra class. Our school has a "mishmar" program, with mishmar being the Torah learning encouraged after school once a week. The class is unconnected to my daily work and the students can take any of a number of options so there is often no continuity. It is learning for learning's sake. When I started teaching it, I had to find an angle: what would my class be that might attract students to it. So many of the rabbis were confronting the big questions of faith and practice that I decided to specialize in the small questions -- little things that bug me or don't make sense but which should be thought about also. I pointed out to the students that there is still a lot in Judaism that needs to be discussed and uncovered and they have as much right as anyone to come up with novel understandings or explanations. Over the years, I have come with a bunch of little things that don't make sense or that need discussion and we have had a fun time arguing over the trivia that populates out days. Today, something really wonderful happened. I came to the mishmar session ready with a problem which I thought would keep us busy as we worked the problem through, back and forth, arguing and challenging so that even if we ended up with no satisfying answer, we could say that we moved the conversation forward.
I was troubled by how we describe the upcoming holiday of Shavu'ot, the feast of weeks. It is one of the three pilgrimage festivals and is an intense celebration of the Torah and our being defined as a Jewish nation. In our liturgy, when we mention the day, we refer to it as "z'man matan torateinu" -- the time of the giving of our Torah. What troubled me is that in certain complementary stories, the medrash, the holiday is called "Yom Kabbalat hatorah" the day of the receiving of the Torah. This phrasing makes more sense to me. We should be focusing on our receiving the law, not God's giving! I can give anyone anything but if he doesn't take it then my giving is for nothing. Additionally, we make a big deal about how the people, at the foot of Mount Sinai, all said "na'aseh v'nishma" -- we will do then we will hear (an explanation). We pledged ourselves as adherents of the law. We received it as a people and we should be celebrating that. And yet, aside from 30 mentions in these secondary texts, the holiday seems to focus on the giving (I am skipping the possible answer that we didn't really receive the Torah at Sinai, but did so after the Purim story, and the Kotzker rebbe's idea that we actually are still receiving it every day so we don't focus on one day of receiving). I reminded students that the focus in the prayer-references to the other pilgrimage days is on the people, not God (Sukkot, the feast of booths, is "z'man simchateinu" the time of OUR joy, and Pesach/Passover is the "z'man cheiruteinu" the time of OUR freedom). So if the precedent is to frame things in light of US, why refer to the day by invoking God's action?
Then along came Zoe R. She raised her hand and reminded me that the phrase for Shavu'ot prayers is 2 words; yes, the first is "matan" the giving, but the second is "Torateinu" OUR Torah. Maybe, she suggested, the Torah was always and already ours but it hadn't been "released" to us. We had been waiting for it to be our turn to take what was destined for us from the Beginning and on this day, Hashem gave us this gift (matanah). Imagine if you grow up knowing that one day, the fancy piece of jewelry will be yours. It is out of reach even while it already has your name on it. The day that the other decides you are ready for it and hands it to you becomes a momentous occasion. You need not decide to "receive" it -- you decided that ages ago! The day of Shavu'ot is the time of matan Torateinu. OUR Torah was placed in our care so we could become what we were fated to be. This explanation accounted for 2 words, for the consistency of focus and wording among all the festivals and for the stress we place on this perspective. It comports with the Jewish notion that the Torah was written for the Jews. In other words, it is a wonderfully straightforward, efficient and comprehensive answer which I have not seen before! It was new and it was excellent. I told Zoe I'd write it up but will only do so in her name and with her blessing.
Our next generation of Torah scholars can think, formulate and create understanding. For this, I smile.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Monday, May 6, 2019
As I see it
I hate discussing anything akin to politics and I hate using this blog to put forward my view of significant world events, but I'm going to anyway.
Just putting this all out there so I can keep it straight.
First off, Israel pulled out of Gaza. There is no Israeli force in Gaza, but Gaza is its own political and geographical unit which has, much like many entities, borders separating it from surrounding nations. Gaza has a border with Israel and Egypt. Trucks and people go in and out, but only if they pass through borders -- not “check points” but borders, because we are talking about entering and exiting another sovereign nation. Forget about the trucks with aid that Israel sends in unilaterally. Forget about the Arab decision not to send goods in to Israel for sale so as not to do business with Israel. Forget about the tunnels that have been dug starting from the Gaza side as an attempt to cross the border. Just focus on the fact that there is a border.
Recently, and especially on Fridays, Arabs in the Gaza strip have been protesting at the border. They mass there because they, it seems, don’t want there to be a border. They want the right to enter Israel whenever they want. But the thing is, this is a border. I can’t saunter into another country whenever I want. That’s what borders do. These protests have been less than peaceful with video evidence showing gun fire, burning tires and attempts to snip the wires of the border in order (and this has been stated for the record) for Arabs to infiltrate and kill Jews. [note – all of these things I reference can be found online in articles, videos and other sources. If you wish to read up on it, here is one article -- pay attention to the time line]
On a most recent Friday, during a “peaceful” protest, Arabs shot and injured two Israeli soldiers who were on the Israeli side of the border. This is called an act of war, firing on the soldiers of another nation. This is not “peaceful.” The Arabs are unhappy – their autonomous political entity is struggling and they have decided that the best option is to shoot at Israeli soldiers who are standing in another country. This border, they see, is a way to keep them OUT. But borders serve a variety of purposes – keeping those who belong IN and those who are of another nation OUT. No one has the innate right to come IN whenever he sees fit. Nations exist and often, they have borders and the right to determine who crosses them.
Israel retaliates because, you know, most countries frown on having their soldiers shot. Now, if you think that this retaliation is uncalled for, just imagine that the soldier shot was your son or daughter or was protecting your house from your neighbors on the other side of the street who want to wander in and raid your fridge and have stated that after drinking the milk, they want to kill your children. The soldiers were just standing there. Not shooting anyone. Just making sure that the border remains the border and people stay on their sides of the border. If borders bother you then ask yourself why they exist ANYWHERE and whether the proper approach to them in ALL cases is to shoot people on the other side. Do you endorse that happening anywhere else?
The response to the Israeli response is to indiscriminately fire over 700 rockets into Israel. These devices comprise a double war crime – they are fired towards civilian targets from the cover of non-military sites (yes, all claims can be documented…did you see the picture of the rocket firing mechanism in the minaret?) Seven hundred rockets that claim to be a response to Israel but which ignore that two soldiers were shot on Friday. This is not a “cycle” – it has a definite beginning. Each round does. Once it gets started then, sure, you can claim that it is a cycle, but it doesn’t come into being ex nihilo.
So, to sum up, there is no occupation of Gaza. Israel and Egypt maintain their borders with Gaza. There are no Israeli settlements there and, unless one claims that all of Israel shouldn’t exist, the cities on the Israel side of the border are not settlements. There is no cycle of violence – there is a repeated attempt to breach a fence and cross a border illegally (with stated nefarious aims) and there is violence demonstrated against a sovereign nation. This is not about the political corruption scandals in Israel, the high cost of housing or anything else. This is about the choice to use violence across an international border and then having to deal with the consequences. Again, I can provide video, documentation and other substantiation for my claims. I haven’t because right now, I’m just typing stuff, but it is all out there, plus more stuff. I find it frustrating that many people (including US politicians) want to look at this with an eye towards “equivalence” and refusing to see the actual cause of the problem. This isn’t some constant back-and-forth. This is a timed and calculated escalation after a period of relative calm. If you want to defend the Arab position, you will have to start by defending the decision to shoot two soldiers across a border during a peaceful protest.
Just putting this all out there so I can keep it straight.
First off, Israel pulled out of Gaza. There is no Israeli force in Gaza, but Gaza is its own political and geographical unit which has, much like many entities, borders separating it from surrounding nations. Gaza has a border with Israel and Egypt. Trucks and people go in and out, but only if they pass through borders -- not “check points” but borders, because we are talking about entering and exiting another sovereign nation. Forget about the trucks with aid that Israel sends in unilaterally. Forget about the Arab decision not to send goods in to Israel for sale so as not to do business with Israel. Forget about the tunnels that have been dug starting from the Gaza side as an attempt to cross the border. Just focus on the fact that there is a border.
Recently, and especially on Fridays, Arabs in the Gaza strip have been protesting at the border. They mass there because they, it seems, don’t want there to be a border. They want the right to enter Israel whenever they want. But the thing is, this is a border. I can’t saunter into another country whenever I want. That’s what borders do. These protests have been less than peaceful with video evidence showing gun fire, burning tires and attempts to snip the wires of the border in order (and this has been stated for the record) for Arabs to infiltrate and kill Jews. [note – all of these things I reference can be found online in articles, videos and other sources. If you wish to read up on it, here is one article -- pay attention to the time line]
On a most recent Friday, during a “peaceful” protest, Arabs shot and injured two Israeli soldiers who were on the Israeli side of the border. This is called an act of war, firing on the soldiers of another nation. This is not “peaceful.” The Arabs are unhappy – their autonomous political entity is struggling and they have decided that the best option is to shoot at Israeli soldiers who are standing in another country. This border, they see, is a way to keep them OUT. But borders serve a variety of purposes – keeping those who belong IN and those who are of another nation OUT. No one has the innate right to come IN whenever he sees fit. Nations exist and often, they have borders and the right to determine who crosses them.
Israel retaliates because, you know, most countries frown on having their soldiers shot. Now, if you think that this retaliation is uncalled for, just imagine that the soldier shot was your son or daughter or was protecting your house from your neighbors on the other side of the street who want to wander in and raid your fridge and have stated that after drinking the milk, they want to kill your children. The soldiers were just standing there. Not shooting anyone. Just making sure that the border remains the border and people stay on their sides of the border. If borders bother you then ask yourself why they exist ANYWHERE and whether the proper approach to them in ALL cases is to shoot people on the other side. Do you endorse that happening anywhere else?
The response to the Israeli response is to indiscriminately fire over 700 rockets into Israel. These devices comprise a double war crime – they are fired towards civilian targets from the cover of non-military sites (yes, all claims can be documented…did you see the picture of the rocket firing mechanism in the minaret?) Seven hundred rockets that claim to be a response to Israel but which ignore that two soldiers were shot on Friday. This is not a “cycle” – it has a definite beginning. Each round does. Once it gets started then, sure, you can claim that it is a cycle, but it doesn’t come into being ex nihilo.
So, to sum up, there is no occupation of Gaza. Israel and Egypt maintain their borders with Gaza. There are no Israeli settlements there and, unless one claims that all of Israel shouldn’t exist, the cities on the Israel side of the border are not settlements. There is no cycle of violence – there is a repeated attempt to breach a fence and cross a border illegally (with stated nefarious aims) and there is violence demonstrated against a sovereign nation. This is not about the political corruption scandals in Israel, the high cost of housing or anything else. This is about the choice to use violence across an international border and then having to deal with the consequences. Again, I can provide video, documentation and other substantiation for my claims. I haven’t because right now, I’m just typing stuff, but it is all out there, plus more stuff. I find it frustrating that many people (including US politicians) want to look at this with an eye towards “equivalence” and refusing to see the actual cause of the problem. This isn’t some constant back-and-forth. This is a timed and calculated escalation after a period of relative calm. If you want to defend the Arab position, you will have to start by defending the decision to shoot two soldiers across a border during a peaceful protest.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
Super geeky
So I have been thinking about super heroes (MCU ones, mostly) recently. With the release of Endgame, super heroes have been on everyone's mind but I have decided to take a different approach. I started thinking about what makes the super heroes what they are - - maybe so I could figure the best path towards becomg one.
So as far as I can tell, there are 3 categories of super hero: skills, abilities, technology.
Skills - these super heroes are regular "people" within their own environs but they have training which elevates them. Hawkeye, Black Widow, Nick Fury, the Dora Milaje and other warriors in Wakanda, the Valkeries (and to some degree Thor) come to mind. Most of the Guardians of the Galaxy also. Even Doctor Strange.
Abilities - intentionally or not, these heroes have inherent elements which others can't learn. Captains America and Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Spiderman, the Hulk, Deadpool and all mutants, to name a few. Thor to the rest of the degree would fit in here.
Technology - the heroes whose identity is defined by the technology they have access to. The other heroes use technology but without it, they still have their skills or abilities. Without his suit, Ant Man is just Scott. So here we have Iron Man, Rescue, War Machine, Falcon, Bruce Banner in Infinity War. Did I miss any?
Two side notes - Black Panther is a combination of all 3 (well, at least 2) and Falcon, when becoming Captain America will have a problem because he is trying to fill an "abilities" role without having those abilities. Bucky has those abilities.
Did I miss anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)