Jocks, each

I wasn't planning on getting angry today. I was planning on spending some quality Passover time eating too much and avoiding my work. These are time honored traditions.

And I also have tried real hard to avoid commenting on some stuff I have seen going on in the Jewish community because, hey, I wanna be good, so I wanna keep my mouth shut. So far, so good. But not today and not now.

There has been some hubbub within the Jewish community over the last few years because of a couple of young gentlemen who are rising stars in certain athletic fields. If I recall correctly, one is a baseball player and one is a basketball player and aren't we all SO proud of them for holding on to their Jewish heritage while climbing the ranks and maybe, one day, breaking the glesseleh ceiling that has kept religious Jews from the elite ranks of professional athletes.

Note - I am not dealing with the young woman who plays ping pong*, or the basketball team in Texas or anyone who runs any marathons. I'm talking about these two, and then one other, individuals because they are what's in my head right now.

In the case of these two gentlemen, much has been said about all the accommodations they make to minimize any potential desecration of the sabbath so that they can continue their upward movement without having to compromise their adherence to halacha. Sort of.

Listen, I like sports as much as the next guy, or at least the guy next to him. But it just seems to me that competing is not what Shabbat is about. Finding ways around the laws so that one can continue to compete doesn't seem right to me. Call me crazy, or fundamentalist or a Martian, but in my ever so humble opinion, Shabbat is not for hard-core competition. I recall, years ago, when a student in my class asked the rebbe if there was anything wrong with playing basketball on Shabbat if there is an eruv. The rabbi cautioned that it could lead to score keeping and writing things down, and it might lead to driving to games or who knows what else, but at the least, it would lead to a cheapening of what Shabbat is. And, yes, I'm being hypocritical because I have been known to play games on the Sabbath so there is certainly some measure of competition going on here. But I think that there has to be some halachic distinction between playing a 48 minute, semi-pro basketball game at an arena and trying to win a game of casino at my dining room table.

So, yeah, I'm sickened by this hero worship. But I have held my tongue so that everyone can suck at the existential teat of fame by group-affiliation. Look...he's a religious Jew and he is playing minor league ball so my identity as a religious Jew doesn't have to inevitably indicate that there is no chance for my proving to the world that I got game.

Today, however, I saw an article on the ESPN website about a student at what is called a "Jewish Day School" (it is a pluralistic school with which I have no personal affiliation). He runs. I'm not saying I understand why, but he runs. And he developed a connection to his religiosity and decided that it was inappropriate for him to engage in competitive running on Shabbat. In fact, according to the article, he researched it and cited a well known and respected Jewish authority (the Ta"Z) to support his decision. So he wasn't going to run. Kudos to him.

But then the coach of his team was quoted as not understanding the decision, and trying to convince him to run ("Oliver's coach showed him, using numbers, how his absence would impact the team's chance to win") Imagine that. At a Jewish school, the coach was trying to guilt a student who was expressing his Judaism into doing something that went against that student's Jewish ideals. Disgusting, if you ask me. The kid could have found a way out but he wanted to live his convictions and the AUTHORITY FIGURE tried to push him away from being his authentic self. The other kids on the team froze him out (""If you're not going to race, don't show up. No one wants to see your face."). His mother tried to push him into it saying he "owed" it to his team. Not that he owed anything to a few thousand years of tradition, just to a bunch of high school kids who wear shorts and run o that they can get a medal. Good job supporting your son, ma. His own cousin questioned the decision.

How are we not shaming THEM? How are we not teaching the middot that celebrate adherence to halacha? Why are we so fixated on winning and proving to the non-Jews that we are like them, so much so that we sacrifice some aspect of our own actual beliefs? Why didn't the school hold this runner up as a model of something incredible and special? How could they let this peer pressure and bullying go on?

Why do we look up to those who justify their pushing the envelope and not those who say "I'm happier following the rules as they are, not as I need them to be?" Maybe orthodox Jews aren't meant to be professional athletes. Maybe we are meant to be orthodox Jews for whom Sabbath observance is more important. I admire this one student not because he represents the Jewish community, because, sadly, the community has become corrupted. I admire him because he represents what the community SHOULD be.




*yes, I should be lauding the young woman for her decision to default rather than play on Shabbat but I haven't seen an article which says that she was pressured by her Jewish community to abandon her spiritual identity.

A clearinghouse of ideas.

Over the last few days, my randomly firing brain has spewed out a few separate ideas. None is especially fleshed out - some have major plot gaps, and I haven't found a way to connect them all. I am posting a couple here that I was able to commit to words before each flew away. All rights to these ideas are reserved by me so if any strikes your fancy and you want to develop it, please contact me so we can discuss licensing and royalties. Daddy gots to get paid, y'all.

1. We start, flashing back to a small area in the deserts of Arizona. A group of wandering pioneers decides to establish a town.

A few years down the road, the town founders, worried about [and here I don't know what threat to create] so they set up a doomsday/failsafe plan. This would be triggered by the presence of the word "drowned" in a death report. Unlikely for a town in the desert so they thought it cunning and [for some reason inherently related to the "threat" drowning would be an important indicator].

Cut to modern day. Guy watering his lawn. The spigot handle breaks. He takes out a screwdriver and unscrews it. Towards the end, water pressure shoots the screw up into his forehead, knocking him out. He falls back onto his lawn as the water keeps shooting out like a fountain into his face, drowning him.

Police come, the body is taken to the morgue where the coroner confirms that, in the middle of a desert, a guy died of drowning. This sets off the doomsday device which drives the plot to save the town (or, if one were to imagine that this drowning in fact IS what the founders were worried about, to avoid the threat the founders first imagine].




2. In which a man discovers a horrible conspiracy!

A guy realizes that in this artificial existence that we call life, the "overseers" [whoever is really in charge] have been giving us hints about the fake nature of our world, and yet we never see them. Every celebrity or politician is an actor playing a role of playing a role. The names are structured using literary and psychological devices.

Consider the names of the supposed "bad" guys according to the scripted drama sometimes called world War 2
HITler
MUSSolini
Names start with a verb indicating violence or disorder. [Hero-hito was considered a God by his people, a clear example of Hero worship, which is a bad thing]
And after the war, STALL In, CRUSHchev
The names betray the characters ' evil.
And the good guys?
CHURCHill
TRU MAN
names designed to evoke or trigger a sympathetic response in the audience.
Other characters exist, like the leader who wanted a SDI (Star Wars defense) named Ray-gun.
The guy tries to convince everyone that the world is a scripted set of lies. Cut to chase scenes.




3. The thought keepers. In the future scientists have dealt with the issue of forgetfulness. People were missing memories and having more thoughts than they can possibly juggle and recall. So science created human computers. These organic machines serve as cloud storage for every single thought. They shadow their human counterparts, connected by a neural net that outsources the brain in real time. Every thought and idea is filed and catalogued and each is available for recall at any time. When a person dies, his heir get access to all his experiences and ideas.
But what happens when some of the walking, talking, and telepathically connected new humans get kidnapped
Or
when someone starts hacking into the neural net, stealing ideas?
Or
the thought-keepers try to develop thoughts of their own

The four Sons

 Yes, the following will be sexist in that it plays into stereotypes (and sad truths) about the household, but I feel that it is honest and responsible to its source material and the cultural norms of the time in which it was written.

I believe that there is a different way of understanding the discussion of the four sons in the Haggadah. We read this on Passover and myriad commentators have tried to look at the spiritual and esoteric possibilities but I shall now advance a more straightforward reading:

It was the day before the Passover. The mother was hard at work, scrubbing, moving, checking, and cleaning. It was difficult work but she was not alone. She had her daughters with her and all were slaving away.

In walks child #1 -- he is respectful and curious. Not so great around the house, but he will make a great lawyer. Or maybe a doctor. That's OK too.

He approaches his mother and asks "What are all the laws that are guiding you in all of this work?" The mother smiles sweetly and says "the laws of Passover, dear. Now hush or I won't have time to make you dessert."

The second son walks in. He could care less about anyone but himself and looks down (literally and figuratively) on his mother and sisters in their cleaning. He asks "What's the point of your doing all of this?" 'Your" not "our" -- he wants no part of the cleaning. His mother says "Zip it, kiddo -- I cleaned your room so I know where you stash your girlie magazines. You are just lucky that your father hasn't found out yet, or else nothing would save you."

In comes the next child, the quiet contemplative one. He is so wrapped up in thought that he almost stumbles over his sister who is on her hands and knees washing the dirt floor so the dirt will be K for P. "Watcha doing?" he asks. The mom comes over and says "We are using our elbow grease to clean up. Big changes like getting ready for Passover need hard work, from everyone, including you, me, and even God."

Meanwhile another child has been standing in the corner, totally confused. He has been watching the women in amazement and has heard everything his mother has said. He is at a complete loss. He still doesn't know the rules that mom sent son #1 to study. He wants to be involved so his mom won't go through his drawers, like the second son. But he has been watching so asking "what are you doing" like his brother did seems a dumb idea. So he just stands there. His mother notices. She comes over and whispers "I'll tell you a secret, one that mothers teach their sons: I'm doing this for all of you because I love you. If you help, you can show me how much that means to you."

That last child picks up a rag and starts wiping. Yes, he does a poor job of it and, after he leaves, his mom has to undo and redo everything he "helped" with, but he has developed the right attitude about helping and that will help in the future.

thankyouthankyouthankYOU

 I caught a few minutes of the awards show at which Adam Sandler was awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. A comedian (not so much a humorist IMHO) being lauded by the people he has given jobs to over the years. As only a somewhat-fan of Sandlers vast and uneven body of work I wasn't particularly impressed or interested in the show. Famaous people congratulating each other on being famous. Feh.

Anyway, the Walter Mitty lobe of my brain kicked in to high gear as I supposed that i would be the recipient of said award at some point in the near future. because how could I not? Amirite? Damrite.

Here's what I would do. I would go to the event people and ask to rent out the exact space (the Kennedy Center) the evening before and I would have the same camera set up. I would then have the cameras record me, in a tux, sitting alone for 4+ hours, possibly either responding to imagined speeches, or sitting stolidly for the entire time or maybe slowly becoming more and more concerned by the lack of anyone else in the venue.

I'm not saying that this is to be played as "I was there on the wrong night" bits. That's cute, but not nearly strange enough. I imagine an opening which plays the theme song of the eveing. Oh, didn't I mention that I'm working on a show starting (and stopping!) show tune to be played? Here are the lyrics that I have so far:

A litle bit of Kaufman!

A little bit of Glass!

A little bit confusion

A whole lotta crass

Watch me for four hours

just sitting on my ass

because

a little bit of Kaufman and

a little bit of Glass!

[I have sketched out 6 more verses and a wicked lute solo...]

The award would be on the front podium for about 3 and three quarter hours. Then, after the umpteenth commercial break, I smile and wave and make my way down to the stage where I accept my award.

At this point, I could deliver a speech, full of random pointing to non-existent people, inside references and knowing winks so that the TV audience will feel even more left out. Or maybe I'll just stand there awkwardly, looking around for a full minute, then take the award and slowly back off stage. There are many possibilities.

Anyway, I hope not to see you all then, and thank you for this award!

Just an opening

 To say that he never saw the deer that his car crashed into would be wrong. He had, in fact (though he didn't know it), seen that exact same deer on three separate occasions prior to that day. That subtlety, that truth, went unrealized and unappreciated as his face was pressed into the airbag.

Happy New Year!

 Rosh Hashana Thoughts

 

Yes, yes, yes, I know it is not time for the “Jewish new year” and you probably think that I set my clock ahead 5 months instead of 1 hour but sometimes one cannot control when questions and thoughts arise. So read at your own peril.

I wondered if Rosh Hashana is about the “new” year when it is so centrally about repentance. I mean, why do we even call it by the name of the new year when that seems secondary to the days of awe. Look at the textual references to the day – they point out that this is the seventh month and never, biblically, do they associate a new year with this date. There is nothing in prayer about “new year”— there is one phrase that people like to use to connect to an idea of “new year” which is “hayom harat olam.” But that phrase more accurately means “today is the day of the conception of the world” or “today is the day of the pregnancy of the world.” There is nothing about the birth/beginning itself.

If one were to look in the Talmud to see why the date is also connected to a new year one would read up in tractate Rosh Hashana. The first mishna (explained on 8b) lists all sorts of things for which this date is a new year, including many mitzvot which require yearly observance. The Talmudic text explains some tenuous connections to how one knows that this is the date of this particular notion of new “year” (there are 3 other ways of considering the year, with 3 other dates) but the items that are defined in terms of a Rosh Hashana based year are mainly agricultural (Sabbatical and Jubilee computing, figuring the tithing cycle and the age of a tree in terms of permissibility beyond the first 3 years). So other than its coincidental placement on the day that is Yom T’ruah, there is nothing relevant, it seems to the celebration of the day that has to do with the year-computation cycle. The beginning of Nisan, which is the first day of the year for a number of practical purposes (a king's rule and the holiday-celebratory cycle) isn't celebrated as a new year in any prayers or with any fanfare and yet IT, because it governs our entire holiday schedule should be (one might think) a new year's marker to remember and celebrate.

But I think that the naming plays an important part in establishing our correct attitude towards our religious identity and purpose. By calling it by the name Rosh Hashana, and recognizing it in its roll of refreshing our obligations to nature, our servants/debtors and our fellow Jews we stress that the value of the day is in the opportunity to embrace and fulfill obligations. The primary purpose of the day can’t be the “asking for forgiveness” – if that were primary, we would have made sure to ask forgiveness at the close of the previous year so that we could start the new year with a clean slate. But our Yom HaDin is not until a week after this new year begins. And yet we celebrate the new year!  We aren’t asking forgiveness at the close of year, but at the BEGINNING because we are showing that forgiveness is not the central aim but instead, our acceptance of a whole new set of mitzvot and obligations which will drive our practice for the next year and our pre-emptory fear that we will fall short in fulfilling these obligations. This makes the month before Rosh Hashana vital in terms of clearing away sins and makes Rosh Hashana act as a forward thinking repentance. For a month we have asked for forgiveness for what is passed and now we accept that we have to start over again – the cycle is never done. So we focus on being written into the book of life through our zealousness regarding all the commandments which are refreshed. Tithes are about charity and we say in our prayers that Charity can remove the evil decree against us. We pray out loud because a loud voice in prayer has the same effect (Yom T’ruah can be understood as “a day of loud noise”). We have been repenting in order to go into the year and start new adherence properly.

Rosh Hashana is about moving forward into a new year, not being stuck in our pasts. We recognize this by calling it by that aspect of its identity which looks ahead to treating others and our world better.

Going for [the] one

 Just some linguistic thoughts regarding a certain word in biblical Hebrew.

Is “echad” ordinal, cardinal or something else? Who decides, using what rules and with what expectation of consistency? Are there subtle differences in meaning depending on the precise form?

 

In the korban tamid (related in Bamidbar 28:1-8) the two lambs are required. The text writes of them as follows:

Pasuk 4: ד אֶת-הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד, תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר; וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי, תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

 

So why is the first lamb keves echad, one lamb?

The Stone edition has “The one lamb shall you make in the morning and the second lamb shall you make in the afternoon.” Echad is used as an cardinal, the one lamb – not an item in a list. Contrast this with the word HA-sheini. Sheini is the ordinal form, showing that this is the second (some translations have “the other”).

Question 1 – why not list the keves echad as keves rishon (the first) if the second item is in ordinal form as a CONTINUATION of a list. Rishon is a word which was used in the biblical text (cf Ex 12:2 and the Aramaic “reish” for it).

As a comparison, the version of the Tamid in Sh’mot 29:39 has

אֶת־הַכֶּ֥בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֖ד תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה בַבֹּ֑קֶר וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבָּֽיִם

The label for the one lamb is HA-echad, not "echad". The Ibn Ezra deals with this (sort of)

https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.29.39?lang=bi&with=Ibn%20Ezra&lang2=en

and makes the case that the construction leads one to understand this verse as meaning “the lamb, one lamb”. But before that he makes a comment about how the text SHOULD read and then lists it exactly as we have it, indicating either a variant written text or a memorial mistake on his part.

Pesukim 7 and 8 have

וְנִסְכּוֹ֙ רְבִיעִ֣ת הַהִ֔ין לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֑ד בַּקֹּ֗דֶשׁ הַסֵּ֛ךְ נֶ֥סֶךְ שֵׁכָ֖ר לַהֹ׃

Its libation [shall be] one fourth of a hin for the one lamb, in the Holy [Sanctuary], you shall pour an intoxicating libation [of aged wine] to [before] Adonoy.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָֽעַרְבָּ֑יִם כְּמִנְחַ֨ת הַבֹּ֤קֶר וּכְנִסְכּוֹ֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַהֹ ׃ {פ}

Offer the second lamb in the afternoon…

Sh’mot 29:40-41 has

וְעִשָּׂרֹ֨ן סֹ֜לֶת בָּל֨וּל בְּשֶׁ֤מֶן כָּתִית֙ רֶ֣בַע הַהִ֔ין וְנֵ֕סֶךְ רְבִיעִ֥ת הַהִ֖ין יָ֑יִן לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָֽד׃

And a tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with one fourth of a hin of pressed olive oil, and a libation of a fourth of a hin of wine for the first lamb.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָעַרְבָּ֑יִם

And the second lamb shall you make in the afternoon.

The above translation is from the Sefaria website using the Metsudah Chumash translation – others have “one lamb” except for the Stone edition which has “each” which would make no sense because why list the inclusive “each” when the verses explicitly list the wine libation for each separately? There are no others to be included who aren’t listed.

Why would this one translation go with “each” and why would the other go with “first”?

Question (group) 2 – While, again, the second number is present (HA-sheini) the first is now introduced with the specifying definite article הָאֶחָֽד and the translation has it as “the ONE.” It still isn’t first, just 1. If the point is to use the word for the cardinal, what changes by adding the letter hey in front of it? What is lost by the text of verse 4 NOT having that letter?

Question 2 continued – the first biblical use of “HA-echad” is Bereisheet 2:11:

שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כׇּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃

The name of the first is Pishon which surrounds all the land of Chavilah, where there is gold.

Somehow, the English (in multiple translations) sees ha-echad now as “first” instead of any other ordinal (rishon). No commentator that I could find addresses either the use of “echad” instead of “rishon” or the specific use of “HA-echad” as opposed to just echad though the Radak does spend time on the use of the introductory hey on the word Hachavilah in the same verse.

Side note – the Targum Onkelos has, for “echad “ the word “chad” in BOTH CASES. The addition of a hey in verse 7 makes no difference to the Aramaic! [in Gen 1:5, the Hebrew “echad” is translated by Onkelos as “chad” so the precedent seems clear]

Question 3 – taking a look a little further, one can read pasuk 13 “וְעִשָּׂרֹ֣ן עִשָּׂר֗וֹן סֹ֤לֶת מִנְחָה֙ בְּלוּלָ֣ה בַשֶּׁ֔מֶן לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֑ד” which is translated in multiple versions as “And one tenth [of an eiphah] of fine flour as a meal-offering mixed with the [olive] oil for each lamb…” In this case, suddenly, HA-echad is now “each”, neither ordinal nor cardinal. And in the Aramaic, the same word, “chad” appears. Though this connects to the translation cited above for Sh’mot 29, the contexts are numerically different as the Bamidbar use is in a case of 7 lambs (28:11) and the Sh’mot case has 2, both addressed explicitly.

 Entertaining any answers...