Parasha Ekev – “If…then…”

Deu 7:12 “If only you listen to these laws, safeguarding and keeping them, then God your Lord will keep the covenant and love with which He made an oath to your fathers.”

והיה עקב תשׁמעון את המשׁפטים האלה ושׁמרתם ועשׂיתם אתם ושׁמר יהוה אלהיך לך את־הברית ואת־החסד אשׁר נשׁבע לאבתיך׃

Vehayah ekev tishme’un et hamishpatim ha’eleh ushmartem va’asitem otam veshamar Adonay Eloheycha lecha et-habrit ve’et-hachesed asher nishba la’avoteycha.

The Covenant of The Land between G-d and Israel is a conditional covenant that is dependent on the People’s conduct. If the People keep their part of the bargain, then G-d will keep his part of the bargain.

If we look through history we will see that the borders of The Land have been directly connected to The People’s level of Torah Observance. The better People have been at Observing Torah, the more of The Land promised to Avraham Avinu they have been in possession of. G-d has NEVER specified the borders of The Land.

Edit Addition:

“The Historical Jewish people, despite all its contradictions and despite all the divisions that arose within it, never considered the state apparatus – that is, the force of organized power under which the people live – as one of the constitutive elements if its national essence. The same holds true with regard to the land. Contrary to what is claimed in our Declaration of Independence: “The Jewish people has emerged in the Land of Israel,” eighty or hundred generations have kept rooted in their consciousness, the memory of the fact that a people – which already existed – had invaded the land of Canaan and had made of it the Land of Israel…In its historical consciousness, the people existed outside all territorial attachments. It remembered – and was reminded – that it had been a stranger in Egypt…Later it was to become independent, not in a State, but in a desert, something without defined borders…The historical image is clear: it is the people who created the State, and not the State, not the land, which has created the people… It is thus quite clear, with respect to the Jewish people, that it was not a state apparatus, not a framework for the wielding of power, nor a given territory, not even a language that brought it into being and kept it in existence. Its national identity is incarnated in one specific, immanent element – Judaism.” (Leibowitz p 95-96)

 

The direct consequences of not Observing Torah has always been loss of The Land. Always. Loss of The Land and Exile. Why? Because Torah is directly imprinted on The Land. Remember the part in Devarim where G-d command The People to read the Curses and Blessing from Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal?

Deu 11:29-32 And it shall come to pass, when the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt set the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. Are they not beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the terebinths of Moreh? For ye are to pass over the Jordan to go in to possess the land which the LORD your God giveth you, and ye shall possess it, and dwell therein. And ye shall observe to do all the statutes and the ordinances which I set before you this day.

Deu 27:1-7 And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying: ‘Keep all the commandment which I command you this day. And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over the Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster. And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over; that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the LORD, the God of thy fathers, hath promised thee. And it shall be when ye are passed over the Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster. And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones; thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of unhewn stones; and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God.
And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there; and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God.

- There’s your imprint. The Land has its own Mezzuzot. The Land is Bound to Torah and its Observance – there really is no way around this.

So how to tie this to current events – to our modern historical reality?

I strongly believe that the Settlements in the West Bank are illegal, not only from a perspective of International Law, but from a Torah Perspective.

Let’s look at what has happened at other times when The People has been exiled and has lost The Land – Nebuchadnezzar overran Judah and brought The People into Exile in Babylon 2Ch 36:13. 70 years later Cyrus let The People return 2Ch 36:22-23. Someone, not of the People worked as G-d’s hands and brought The People back. Now let’s go forward – to 1947. Now to my mind the basic pattern of Possession-Exile is that for exile to end, someone not of The People has to intercept on the People’s behalf, and bring them back. Wasn’t that what happened 1947? Didn’t an International Community make it possible for The People to return? I think that’s what happened.

This would mean that The Land which G-d gives to The People, at this point in Time is the portion that was partitioned to the Jewish people as “Israel” in 1947. This would also mean that any expansion outside those borders are illegal, since The Land is bound to Torah, and its extension is directly connected to what G-d gives.

There’s another thing – that my Wife pointed out: “Why has the People been doing all those “Forth and Back”? Because G-d said so and someone listened.

The People was in peril – Yossef listened to G-d and brought the People into Egypt. Moshe listened to G-d and brought them out of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar listened to G-d and brought the People into Exile – Cyrus listened to G-d and brought the People back.

The cycle of Possession-Exile have always been directed by “because G-d said so, and someone listened…”

So the possession of The Land is in this time limited by the borders determined at a time when someone listened to G-d.

The only way, according to Torah and Tanakh, the only way The People can come into possession of The Land as promised by G-d to Avraham Avinu, is by accepting the provisions of the Covenant – “Keep all the commandment which I command you this day.”

Now, that is hardly what the State of Israel is doing at the moment, and honestly it’s not what the Settlers, who claim religious rights The Land are doing either. The Settlers are occupying Land out-side the borders set up, ultimately by G-d, in 1947, and the only reason they can do that is because the secular State of Israel is helping them by deploying military force to keep them there.

“And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings…”

שׁלם

shelem
BDB Definition:
1) peace offering, requital, sacrifice for alliance or friendship
1a) voluntary sacrifice of thanks

Note that shelem could easily be written shalom…

The Sages stipulated that since the Temple is destroyed – in substitution of actual sacrifices, we are to offer up our prayers, and recitations of the Texts that directly deal with the different sacrifices stipulated in Torah. That is all well, but since the sacrifices in Torah is also connected to acts of contrition and thanks, i.e return to compliance with Torah, just reading them thrice a day is not enough – our actions have to reflect the inner content of the sacrifice.

How is accepting land that belongs to someone else, acting on a sense of wishing them peace? Fact is it’s not. In fact it’s a violation of Torah, because it means removing my neighbor’s landmarks:

Deu 19:14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.

Deu 27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark. And all the people shall say: Amen.

Since the entire Earth belongs to G-d, any person living next to me is my neighbor – G-d is the one setting the boundaries, and since the boundaries for The Land is set by G-d according to how well the People Observe His Torah, Land adjacent to that of Israel must belong to the neighbor.

Neighbor:

ריע / רע

rêa‛ / rêya‛
BDB Definition:
1) friend, companion, fellow, another person
1a) friend, intimate
1b) fellow, fellow-citizen, another person (weaker sense)
1c) other, another (reciprocal phrase)

Can’t really get around that – any other person is my neighbor – whose landmark I may not remove.

Parasha Va’etchanan – Devarim 3:23-7:11

The Shema – What is it?

Devarim 6:4-9, 11:13-21, Bamidbar 15:37-41

Devarim 6:4-9

“HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE Adonai OUR GOD, THE Adonai IS ONE.

And thou shalt love Adonai thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.”

Devarim 11:13-21

“And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love Adonai your G-d, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, that I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. And I will give grass in thy fields for thy cattle, and thou shalt eat and be satisfied. Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; and the anger of Adonai be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit; and ye perish quickly from off the good land which Adonai giveth you. Therefore shall ye lay up these My words in your heart and in your soul; and ye shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them your children, talking of them, when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which Adonai swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth.”

Bamidbar 15:37-41

“And Adonai spoke unto Moses, saying: ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of Adonai, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray; that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your G-d. I am Adonai your G-d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your G-d: I am Adonai your G-d.’”

What does it mean…

Thou shalt love Adonai thy G-d

“You shall love the Lord your God”: means that because of you the Name of Heaven will become beloved. That is, when a person studies Bible and Mishnah and ministers to the needs of the teachers of Torah, and speaks gently with other people, and deals properly with others in the marketplace, and conducts his business honestly, what do people say about him? “Happy is the one who studied Torah; happy is the teacher who taught this one Torah…”

Abaye, in the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 86a.

Rashi: And you shall love [the Lord] Perform His commandments out of love. The one who acts out of love cannot be compared to the one who acts out of fear. If one serves his master out of fear, when the master sets a great burden upon him, this servant will leave him and go away [whereas if out of love he will serve him even under great burden] (Sifrei 6:5).

With all thy heart – my spiritual/emotional being

This is a command to love G-d with that which is innermost in me, my essence, my person, my passion, my driving force. I suspect this command is tied to the command to cleave to G-d. Devarim 10:20 Adonai, your G-d, shall you fear, Him shall you serve, to Him shall you cleave, and in His Name shall you swear. Devarim 11:22 For if you will observe this entire mitzvah that I command you, to perform it, to love Adonai, your G-d, to walk in His ways and to cleave to Him.

“The Sages explain that the way to cleave to G-d is by attaching oneself to Torah scholars (Rashi). By this injunction we are commanded to mix and associate with wise men, to be always in their company, and to join with them in every possible manner of fellowship: in eating, drinking, and business affairs, to the end that we may succeed in becoming like them in respect of their actions and in acquiring true opinions from their words. The wise man, or as he is called in Hebrew talmid chacham, ‘the disciple of a wise man’, interpreting and exemplifying as he does the word of G-d, is regarded in Jewish thought as being nearest to Him. To cleave to the wise man is thus to cleave to Adonai (Berachot 10b; Pesachim 22b)”

RaMBaN interprets “cleaving” as the duty to avoid the temptation of idol worship by always remembering G-d and inspiring oneself to love Him.

My spiritual being is that which connects with G-d on an immediate level. Loving G-d, and cleaving to Him through prayer and meditation – through spiritual exercise is what will keep me centered and grounded when all else fails. So my love for G-d, the command to love G-d with my innermost being is a command to stay connected to G-d.

With all thy soul – my mind/intellectual being

The human mind is very flighty – it’s easily distracted, so loving G-d with all my soul/mind/intellectual being might not be as easy as directing my spiritual being, because my mind will pick up this and that from what is around me. So in order to direct my mind towards loving G-d, I need to occupy my mind with things that keeps it focused on G-d. Here Torah Study is a very good Task Master. I need both my own thoughts and others to accomplish this. Asking questions, getting answers and exercising my mind around matters of Torah not only focuses my mind on G-d, it increases my knowledge, and my sense of clarity.

“She is more precious than rubies; and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her, and happy is every one that holdest her fast. HaShem by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens. By His knowledge the depths were broken up, and the skies drop down the dew. My son, let not them depart from thine eyes; keep sound wisdom and discretion; So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck.” (Mishlei/Prov. 3:15-22)

The Rabbis taught: Once the evil kingdom [of Rome] decreed that the Jews may not engage in Torah study. Pappus ben Yehudah found R. Akiva teaching Torah in public to large groups. He said to him, “Akiva, are you not afraid of the authorities?”… When the Romans took R. Akiva to execute him, it was time for the reading of the shema. They were tearing his flesh with iron combs, and he was reciting the shema. His students said to him, “Master, must one go so far?” He said to them, “All my life I was troubled by the verse ‘With all your soul,’ which I understood as ‘even if God takes your soul,’ and I wondered about when I would have the opportunity to fulfill it? Now that I have the opportunity, shall I not fulfill it?

– (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 61b)

With all thy might – my physical/social being

How do I love G-d with my physical being? My immediate response is “through the rituals”. From washing hands in the morning to reciting the Evening Shema, the Jewish daily life is full of physical expressions. And then of course there is the ‘shockling’ while praying…

There is something profoundly comforting in wrapping oneself in Tallit Gadol every morning, but it is also a profound reminder of being a person who directs oneself towards G-d, seeking G-d’s Presence through both physical and spiritual means.

But it doesn’t stop at me. Loving G-d physically will eventually reflect a deeper level of commitment, in a sense ‘kavanah’ through how I conduct myself among my friends as well as among strangers – eating kosher, reciting Motzi before meals, saying grace after meals, is in a sense a pure physical way of worshipping and loving G-d, who commanded us to do those things.

Rashi: and with all your means Heb. וּבְכָל- מְאֹד‏ֶ, uvechol me’odecha, with all your possessions. There are people whose possessions are more precious to them than their own bodies. Therefore, it says,”and with all your means.” (Sifrei) Another explanation of וּבְכָל- מְאֹד‏ֶ is: You shall love God with whatever measure (מִדָּה, mi’dah) He metes out to you, whether it be the measure of good or the measure of retribution. Thus also did David say: “I will lift up the cup of salvations [and I will call upon the name of the Lord]” (Ps. 116:12-13); “I found trouble and grief [and I called out in the name of the Lord]” (Ps. 116:3-4).

This calls for loving G-d through my financial self and with what I own. To be willing to share what I have with those who have not – even if what I have is little.

“Justice, Justice, shall you pursue…” – “The double emphasis means: Justice (Tzedek) under any circumstances, whether to you profit or loss, whether in word or action, whether Jew or non-Jew. It also means: Do not use unjust means to secure justice” (Bachya ben Asher’s Commentary on Parashas Shoftim 16:20)

“Tzedakah” is the Hebrew word for the acts that we call “charity” in English: giving aid, assistance, and money to the poor and needy or to other worthy causes. But the nature of tzedakah is very different from the idea of charity. The word “charity” suggests benevolence and generosity, a magnanimous act by the wealthy and powerful for the benefit of the poor and needy. The word “tzedakah” is derived from the Hebrew root Tzade-Dalet-Qof, meaning righteousness, justice, or fairness. In Judaism, giving to the poor is not viewed as a generous, magnanimous act; it is simply an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of a duty, giving the poor their due, achieving just distribution of what this world and G-d has to offer.

Bind them for a sign upon thy hand – Action.

Torah, G-d’s Commandments, all 613 of them are all opportunities to speak the language of Torah and G-d’s love in a physical manner. Every time I put a coin or a bill in my tzeddaka box, I am loving G-d with my physical resources, and if I have nothing to put in my tzedakah box, maybe I can pledge an hour of Torah study or kindness to a stranger in need? Through my actions I either show the presence of Torah or I don’t, which it is is completely up to me.

Which ever I choose – I am commanded by G-d to let my Actions be guided/controlled by Torah. But there is also the actual physical binding of Tefillin on my hand. Which in itself carries a commitment to G-d through the prayer said as the Tefillin shel yad is strapped around the middle finger and hand:

“I will betroth you to me forever, and I will betroth you to me with righteousness, justice, kindness, and mercy. I will betroth you to me with fidelity, and you shall know Hashem” (Hos 2:19)

And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine arm.

Rashi: And you shall bind them for a sign [ot] upon your hand These are the tefillin of the arm.

Devarim 10:19 – “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt“

Some times refraining from physical action is the fulfilment of this mitzvah – Devarim 24:19;

“When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.”

They shall be for frontlets between thine eyes – My Views/My Perceptions of the World

New Age speak of the ‘Third Eye’, as placed right in the middle of one’s forehead – it is that whith which we see that which cannot be seen, only sensed. I imagine G-d’s Torah as being placed right there, between my eyes, to let me ‘see’ the World through the eyes of G-d. This commandment also speaks of what is supposed to be at the foremost front of my mind. G-d’s Commandments. Every day I am commanded to let that which happens around me be ‘filtered’ through the Eye of Torah, so I can judge Right from Wrong and be aware of the world from a perspective of G-d’s Torah. I have some times wondered if the ‘mark’ G-d put on Kayin to protect him from those who would kill him for his murder of Hevel, in some way resembled the Tefillin shel rosh…

Rashi: and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes לְטֹטָפֹת. (le’totafot)These are the tefillin of the head, and because of the number of the Scriptural sections contained in them [namely four], they are טֹטָפֹת – totafoth, for טַט – tat in Coptic means”two,” פַּת – pat in Afriki (Phrygian) [also] means”two.” (San. 4b)

Then there is off course the actual putting on of Tefillin shel Rosh – to dedicate myself every morning to Torah and to G-d.

““You have a brain. It is in one world. Your heart is in another. And your hands often end up involved in something completely foreign to both of them. Three diverse machines.

“So you put on tefillin. First thing in the day, you connect your head, your heart and your hand with these leather cables — all to work as one with one intent. And then when you go out to meet the world, all your actions find harmony in a single coordinated purpose…”

How to lay tefillin

Therefore shall ye lay up these My words in your heart and in your soul;

Torah, as a cloak, enclosing my innermost person. Note however that this requires action on my part – I have to lay Torah in my heart and in my soul – Torah will not protect my spirit or my mind unless I actively put it there! Active continuos Torah study and practice of Mitzvot, both alone and with others will not only eventually saturate/permeate my inner being, it will also teach me more about what G-d requires and what G-d has promised me as His Child.

Here is the last paragraph of the Shema

“And Adonai spoke unto Moses, saying: ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of Adonai, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray; that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your G-d. I am Adonai your G-d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your G-d: I am Adonai your G-d.’”

This is the command to don tzitzit – usually the tzitzit (the corner fringes) are carried on a Tallit Gadol (large prayer shawl) during morning prayers – but they can also be carried by a Tallit Katan (smaller tallit worn as an extra garment under regular clothes) all day.

Tradition has it that one of the various ways to tie the tzitzit makes up the number 613 – the number of Mitzvot commanded us by G-d in Torah.

To me, this is the Torah Cloak – I see the tzitzit and I am reminded of who I am, Who commanded me and why.

So each morning, I accept the Yoke of Heaven both physically, by actually putting on the Tallit and the Tefillin, and emotionally/spiritually by devoting myself to the practice of Torah.

Shabbat Shalom!

The Introduction Part 2

“The very ascription of normative force to a divine command is a matter of decision. Like many other weighty decisions, this one may be tacit rather than explicit. In the typical case, one is committed to halakhic practice as a result of socialization. Only in situations in which it cannot be taken for granted need the decision enter one’s awareness. The tradition presents the decision to accept the Halakha as a unique historical event which committed the future generations of Israel. However if we follow out the logic of Leibowitz’s position, it would appear that recognition of the validity of this commitment requires constant renewal of the basic decision. The heteronomous force of the Torah and its Mitzvoth is dependent upon continued autonomous commitment (either explicit or tacit) on both communal and personal level.” (Introduction p. xv)

This sounds self-evident to me – again thoughts that have been roaming my mind for years. First the idea of acceptance of faith as a matter of fact (tacit) through socialization and then the idea of acceptance of faith as a result research (explicit) f.i through conversion, but also if the socialization was missed because of f.i secular parenting. Both are valid, and both require constant renewal.

I’d like to enter a thought that was put forward in the comments to “The Introduction Part 1″ -

“And with that you should keep in mind that Leibowitz was a Litvak. While we see eye to eye on Jewish ethics, his approach to Jewish observance does not suit the needs of every Jew.” (Mobius July 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am) My emphasis.

When I read Leibowitz I am constantly reminded of Dr. Ellis Rivkin, and the idea that every generation of Rabbis pass the authority of Torah, the Mitzvot and the interpretation of those on to the next generation of Rabbis – which in reality means that even if one were to reverse the order of importance of Written and Oral Torah, the halahka one decides to follow would still be binding, because it’s been transmitted through a chain of halakhic decisions from Sinai to the present. If I choose to take up a certain practice, regardless of which order I give to WT and OT, I cannot one day decide to not do that practice, as that would be violating the level of observance that I have accepted on a personal level.

I also see how Ellis Rivkin and Yeshayahu Leibowitz share a strong kinship in terms of what Judaism and being Jewish is. This is a great comfort to me as I search for a way to reconcile within myself a Zionism that is based in Jewish Law and Tradition with a sense of something not being quite right with secular Zionism. But again I am forestalling the discussion

“In Leibowitz’s opinion, a need cannot possibly be a value since it is given, not chosen. Freedom of choice is not a value in its own right, but a condition of all valuation. It is something imposed, part of the human condition, not an end in itself. Autonomy does not commit one to any specific norms, not even “the Moral Law.” Hence there is nothing contradictory about the idea of autonomous commitment to a heteronomous system of rules.” (Introduction p. xv.)

I must say that I really don’t see any conflict or contradiction between an autonomous commitment and a heteronomous system of rules – such as halakha. After all, I still have to get up in the morning and put on my tzitzit, lay my tefillin and say my prayers. regardless of whether the decision to do so originates from within me or is imposed on me from without. Both require that I activate myself and move according to a religious imperative.

The Introduction part 1

The Introduction to the Book is written by Eliezer Goldman.

I admit that I have difficulties getting all the finer points in Goldman’s Introduction to the Thinking of Leibowitz – I am not too familiar with the thinking of Kant on factual and normative. But I understand the meaning of the words, thanks to Dictionary.com!

Philosophy
In philosophy, normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive) or explanatory when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Descriptive (or constative”) statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements, on the other hand, affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. It is only with David Hume in the 18th century that philosophers began to take cognizance of the logical difference between normative and descriptive statements and thinking, although Socrates had emphatically established it more than two thousand years before. There are several schools of thought regarding the status of normative statements and whether they can be rationally discussed or defended. Among these schools are the tradition of practical reason extending from Aristotle through Kant to Habermas, which asserts that they can, and the tradition of emotivism, which maintains that they are merely expressions of emotions and have no rational content. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning thought, belief, emotion and action and are the basis of much ethical and political discourse.

You get that? I kind of do – normative is what we decide is the rule about something – regardless of whether it’s facts or not.

“Ultimately all normative obligations and value-imputations are dependent upon personal decision. A valuation may, of course, be justified in terms of already recognized values, but one’s ultimate values cannot be the subject of rational argument. Their validity for a person results from decision, not from recognition. Since Leibowitz regards religion as an exclusively normative domain and denies that Scripture was intended to be a body of information, this is as true of religious commitment as it is of all other basic life-values. Factual knowledge may be forced upon us by experience. There is nothing to compel one into acceptance of any ultimate value-commitments, including that of religious faith.” (introduction pp xiv-xv)

So religious faith is a choice. Well, I believed that already – though I wouldn’t have said it like that – I usually say it like this: “the existence of G-d cannot be proved nor disproved, so any belief based on the existence of G-d must be a matter of Faith.”

So what is religious faith according to Leibowitz? Leibowitz is Jewish (or was, as he died in 1994) so he is speaking about Judaism. To Leibowitz religious faith is the “Commitment to observance of Halakha as worshipful service of G-d”.

I like this – because it carries a thought I have had, often in discussion with more liberal Jews who complain about the rigidness of the Orthodox: “If it hadn’t been for the rigidness of the Orthodox there would have been no Judaism for you to claim!” Observance of the Mitzvot is the core of Judaism and what it means to be Jewish – in essence that is what makes one Jewish, and that observance is what has kept both the Jewish People and Judaism alive for more than 3000 years.

So I begin…

I have longed for a voice like Yeshayahu Leibowitz – and have wondered where he has been all my Jewish Life…so much of what he says echoes within me.

I found him – and I am astounded, delighted and confused.

Parasha Devarim 1:1-3:22

Finding the Book…

Moshe and Joshua didn’t have the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) – it wasn’t discovered until 2 Kings 22-23…so this Dvar Torah is not based in Devarim – it’s based in the story about Devarim.

Finding the Book…

Each of us have to discover Torah for ourselves. Yes, yes, you are Jewish because your mother was/is or because you converted to Judaism…and still just like King Josia needed the Book to set things right, so do we, each one of us.

Despite our collective relationship with G-d, we still need a personal point at which we relate to what it means to us to be Jewish. We need to find that Book.

Where we find it is not important. But we need to find it, because without it we remain children, just as a Jewish Youth is before his or her Bar/Bat Mitzvah. The young have received teaching in Torah (Talmud Torah) and so discovers the Book little by little until he or she is 12-13 years old and becomes an adult in relation to Torah. But this relationship doesn’t stop there – it needs to be re-established over and over. So each day we need to find that Book.

Now, go find that Book.

A Racist Jewish State:

Knesset Deprives Arabs of Right to Purchase State Land An Israeli Arab brought a case to the Israeli Supreme Court claiming he had been refused the right to buy Israeli land owned by the Jewish National Fund. The high court found in favor of the plaintiff and ruled that the State must change its policy and allow any citizen, whether Jewish or not, to buy such land. The attorney general subsequently approved such changes. The bill voted on yesterday is an attempt to do an “end around” the court ruling. It would enshrine in law the racist notion that only Jews should be able to purchase JNF land, while other Israeli citizens should not.Remember the paeans to Israeli democracy you hear from the lips of the hoch-Zionists: “the only democracy in the Middle East,” etc., etc. You can can that now. An ethnocracy maybe, but not a democracy–especially not if this piece of crap passes on its final reading (yesterday’s vote was the first reading). Haaretz’s editorial today pretty much says it all: A Racist Jewish State:

This bill reflects an abasement of the Zionist enterprise to lows never imagined in the Declaration of Independence. Even though the Jewish National Fund purchased the lands for the Jewish people in the Diaspora, the State of Israel has already been established and these lands must now serve all its citizens.

For those living for tomorrow and not the past, the aim is to create in Israel a healthy, progressive state where the needs of the two peoples should concern the leaders and legislators. The Jewish National Fund’s land policy counters the interests of the state and cannot discriminate by law against the minority living in Israel.

What is most pathetic about the vote is that a mere 10 Jewish MKs could muster enough outrage to vote against this travesty of justice. Even Ami Ayalon, the supposed Labor Party paragon of Israeli-Palestinian understanding voted Aye. The final vote was 64-16. I know in the history of the world’s greatest legislative folly this is but one example. But for Israel it’s truly a golden one.

---

Today I am grieving – and it’s not even the 9th of Av yet…This is so against Torah, so against anything Judaism stands for, Secular or Religious. It is not tzedakah and it’s not tikkun olam. How did it come about?

Two things – Arrogance and Ignorance.

A deep disregard for Torah, which safeguards the Stranger’s right along with the home born, and teaches us that we should have one and the same law for both.

A profound ignorance about how the Land is bound to Torah – and how “Jewish” is intricately connected to Torah – if there’s not Torah, there is literally no “Jewish”.

The Bill doesn’t reflect the vision of Zionism as David Ben-Gurion saw it – let’s not forget what was said in the Declaration of Independence:

WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

—

A child can see the injustice of a legislation that denies any Israeli citizens to purchase land inside Israel. This bill is not what the 37 signatories of the Declaration had in mind, nor what they aimed at when they first set out to create a secure Homeland for the Jews.

The bill that denies the non-Jewish Israeli the right and possibility to purchase land there is chilul Hashem. Yes, G-d gave the land to the decedents of Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya’akov, but that gift came with a provision – that one and the same Law should be for the Israelite as well as the Stranger living with him.

Oh, I know that the Sages have stated that “stranger” means “convert” – but Written Torah has made no such statement - to Written Torah a stranger is any non-Jew sojourning with the People, that includes Israeli Arabs. Honestly – if it’s not present in Written Torah – how can it be present in Oral Torah, where would the Sages have derived it from? For more on the matter of the Stranger: On the Matter Of the Righteous Gentile. Injustice and distortion of Torah has never led to anything but heartbreak and disaster for Israel.

While it can be argued that Israel had the “moral high ground” in 1948, this cannot be argued in the face of violation of simple Torah.

If you are not religious, let’s argue this from another angle: That of Human Rights and simple common decency – another corner stone of modern Judaism, that is even argued and protected by atheist, humanist Jews – the UDHR:

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law.

Article 17.
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

So, the bill passed that denies non-Jewish citizens of Israel the right to purchase land within Israeli borders are simply illegal. It should go “poof” on itself, because it cannot exist side by side with the UDHR – and it certainly cannot exist along side any kind of Judaism that aims at being Jewish.

To have legislation that discriminates one group within a society, under any pre-text is immoral, and when it targets or excludes groups based on ethnicity/culture, it’s called Racism.

Jewish Nationalism is good – Jewish Racism is shaming G-d to the World, and is one step from blasphemy.

Shalom Shabbat!

Another link:

The Magnes Zionist

If you are a Care2 Member there are discussions of this Blog Entry in the following Groups:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=9734&pst=849466
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=8097&pst=983767
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=5893&pst=751342
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=67&pst=982958
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1142&pst=763826

Parasha Matot – Bamidbar 30:2-32:42

Numbers 30:2-6

2. Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the thing the Lord has commanded.

3. If a man makes a vow to the Lord or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not violate his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth, he shall do.

4. If a woman makes a vow to the Lord, or imposes a prohibition [upon herself] while in her father’s house, in her youth,
5. if her father heard her vow or her prohibition which she has prohibited upon herself, yet her father remains silent, all her vows shall stand, and any prohibition that she has imposed upon herself shall stand.

6. But if her father hinders her on the day he hears it, all her vows and her prohibitions that she has imposed upon herself shall not stand. The Lord will forgive her because her father hindered her.

This is interesting – because it is frequently used as a proof text that Judaism is misogynist, the text is mistakenly read, also by the Sages, to mean that a woman’s oath is null and void if her father or husband says it is – but what does the text actually say?

We need to examine exactly what is meant by “a woman” according to Torah:

Rashi says: 4. while in her father’s house. Under her father’s jurisdiction, even if she is not [actually] in his house. – [Sifrei Mattoth 12] in her youth. Neither a minor nor an adult [above the age of twelve and a half], since a minor’s vows are invalid, and an adult is not under her father’s jurisdiction to revoke her vows. What is considered a minor? Our Rabbis said: A girl of eleven years and a day-her vows are examined. If she knew in whose name she vowed, or in whose name she consecrated something, her vow stands. From the age of twelve years and one day, she does not need to be tested. — [Niddah 45b]

Now, children do not have legal obligation anyway, not even in our Society, so why should Jewish Law look at it any different? So is it misogynist to stop one’s under age child of making a binding oath, which she (or he, as the same goes for boys) might not have understood the seriousness of? I don’t think so. So this is put there to safe-guard both the validity of oaths and the legal integrity of children

Just because something is in Torah, doesn’t mean Torah agrees with it or promotes it – it means that Torah takes such things into account, and then it’s up to us to derive the core of it – and as with everything else Torah, we have to that in context of the entire Torah/Tanakh. And we need to know in what context, under what cultural and societal conditions Torah was given.

It is fully possible to arrive at largely the same conclusion by simply reading the text:

6. But if her father hinders her on the day he hears it, all her vows and her prohibitions that she has imposed upon herself shall not stand. The Lord will forgive her because her father hindered her.

The provision for the oath to be null and void – i.e G-d will forgive if it is not fulfilled – is that there’s an obstruction – in this case her father, for whatever reason, stops her from making and fulfilling the oath. And the woman is blameless, because she was not the one breaking the oath, her father was.

Here Torah takes into account that some times men do crazy things in relation to women, and states that women should not be held responsible for the actions of men.

Note that no such provision is made for men – they make an oath and they are bound to keep them. Also note that this only covers oaths made to G-d, not oaths and promises between people. So Torah actually takes human relations more serious than relations between G-d and human.

Novel thought, huh?

Shabbat Shalom!

Liberal lack of Arguments?

“1) Torah/spiritually based arguments on behalf of ending the Occupation invariably come off sounding insipid, whiny, and ill-informed, usually relying on broad cliches or verses that the settlers and right-wingers can easily refute. The right-wingers/settlers/fascists, on the other hand, are absolutely focused on the sources and can quote poskim, meforshim, teshuvot etc. to make their case, while progressives can only say things like “V’ahavta l’reacha kamocha’ – and are helpless when the Right points out that this verse only applies to Jews – and possibly only religious Jews at that! There are some exceptions to this inability to articulate a Jewish/religious anti-imperialism – the late and sorely missed Yishayahu Leibovits comes to mind, as do Daniel Boyarin and Shaul Maggid – but by and large liberal Jewish anti-Occupation polemics are generally pretty lame.

2) Related to #1 above, I am not ultimately convinced that Torah says what we want it to say about Israel, Zionism and the Occupation. Perhaps that’s why the anti-Occupation “spiritual” arguments are so lame. I, of course, remain opposed to the Occupation – and I would love to see substantive Jewish-spiritual/Torah arguments for this position. I remain skeptical, however. Comment by Howie — June 28, 2007 @ 8:00 am (my bold and italic for emphasis)

---

“The right-wingers/settlers/fascists, on the other hand, are absolutely focused on the sources and can quote poskim, meforshim, teshuvot etc. to make their case, while progressives can only say things like “V’ahavta l’reacha kamocha’ – and are helpless when the Right points out that this verse only applies to Jews.

Does it? Who says? Can Torah contradict itself?

The right wing claims that “ger” /(stranger) means “convert” – then that would mean that Avraham Avinu regarded himself as a stranger, a convert, to whatever people it was he was living with when he said: “Gen 23:4 I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a burying place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.” Or G-d actually means that Avraham’s seed shall convert and become Egyptians when He says: “Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.

Now, Rashi may be the greatest Torah scholar there ever was – but he too was only reading and commenting on what he read, from a perspective of his time and his reality.

The thing is that “convert” or even the concept of “conversion” doesn’t exist in Written Torah – people chose to walk with the Jewish People and accept their customs, that was it.

Now to the contradiction – if Written Torah says Stranger = someone not Jewish, and Oral Torah says Stranger = Convert, some 2000 years later – then which one is likely to have the correct usage?

“I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they lived as aliens. Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant (Shemot / Exodus 6:4,5).

The Jewish claim on the Land of Israel is not dependent on politics, religion, or military strength. The giving of the Land of Israel by God to the Jewish people is based on one thing – God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

Yes – but under what conditions? How about the laws of War? Or the reversion of land to it’s original owner after 70 years? Or withholding rightful wages and collateral? How about Devarim 26-29?

What does G-d say repeatedly in Torah about what will happen to Israel if she violates Torah, especially in regards to the Stranger, the Widow and the Orphans? Isn’t Torah itself imprinted on the Land?

Does the Law only apply to Jews, as the right wingers say claiming that Vayikra 19:18 speaks Jews as the neighbor? Does it? Are you sure? I am not – and this is why:

Repeatedly the word Stranger (ger – Strong 1616) is used in combination with sojourn (toshav – Strong 8453) or sojourn (gûr – Strong 1481) i.e someone who is a resident alien or temporary visitor, traveller. Doesn’t sound like Jews, now does it? So it’s very possible that the neighbor is in fact a Stranger living right next to you, no?

So why have the Talmudic Sages transformed the meaning of GER?

Because adjusting and adapting the understanding of Torah over time has always been the Jewish way of maintaining the integrity of The People – from instance to instance interpretation has been needed, and the Sages has given it to us. Now we need another interpretation.

What exactly does Written Torah about how to apply the Law, which is imprinted on the Land?

“Exo 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.’”

“Lev 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am the L-RD your G-d.’ “Ending this command the same way He starts the Aseret HaDibrot – “I am the L-RD your G-d”

“Deu 31:12 Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the L-RD your G-d, and observe to do all the words of this law”

Now, isn’t it rather interesting that G-d says “Assemble the people…” then explains who is the People that is to HEAR, LEARN and OBSERVE the words of this Law? Is the Stranger included? YES!

The problem with the Talmudic Sages is that at one point they decided to close the Book on interpretations, so that new understandings, or reversions of ideas picked up on the way were made virtually impossible. Logic and necessity gave way to literalism and stagnation. The crisis’s that gave us a Path of Prayer in place of Sacrifices or made a virtue out of separatism or made conversion a matter of jumping through smaller and smaller hoops were just that – crisis’s. Now we are faced with another crisis – a crisis of not just secular credibility but of spiritual credibility and integrity.

Unless we, as a people, revert back to an original understanding of the term GER, and include ALL people in the concept Stranger – we will end up not only facing a not too pleased G-d, but we will keep struggling for our very existence endlessly. Is that what we want?

And you shall live in terror? – Parasha Ki Tavo

Because these ideas have been on my mind – I am bumping this Dvar Torah up to visibility.

“And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over the Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster. And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over; that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the LORD, the God of thy fathers, hath promised thee.” (Devarim/Deu 27:2-3)

I’d like to connect this Parsha to what I wrote on Parasha Shoftim about Israel’s responsibility and obligation to Live by Torah’s Ethical Imperative in respect to the Stranger.

When Moshe is about to die, and he instructs the People one last time about what they are to do when they have entered the Land that G-d has given them: First they are to offer thanks to G-d for the Land, for the Covenant and for personal privileges and accountability, but before they do that they are to make sure that the Covenant and the Laws of that Covenant are visible to all who come to dwell there – and then the consequences of adhering or not adhering to the Laws of that Covenant is to be read out loud – as a consecration of the Land. It is as if G-d wants to make sure that His Torah is thoroughly imprinted, not just in the People, but in the very Land. Violating Torah means Violating the Land, because Torah is imprinted on the Land.

While each Jew is certainly personally responsible for obeying Torah, and are asked to affirm this in Devarim/Deu 26:2-10, this Parasha clearly speaks about the ENTIRE people as a Collective – and not just the People, but the stranger as well – Devarim/Deu 26:11. If they fail to observe the statutes of Torah, horrible things will happen to them.

This is where Judaism gets its idea of Reward and Punishment from. The first time Torah speaks of Reward for obedience is in Shemot/Exo 20:12 – “Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the L-RD thy G-d giveth thee.” The implication of a Punishment if disobeyed is also there. Violating Torah means Violating the Land.

People don’t want to hear about the consequences of disobeying Torah – they would much rather hear about the Blessings enumerated in the chapter following the Curses – yet the Curses (Deu 27:15-26; Deu 28:16-19) come before the Blessings (Deu 28:3-6) thus somehow spelling out that we should be aware more of the negative consequences of our actions, rather than what we can gain from acting right.

In Deu 28:66, G-d admonishes in a manner that connects to the present situation in Israel:

“The life you face shall be precarious; you shall be in terror, night and day, with no assurance of survival.” (Deu 28:66)

Over and over Israel is warned that forgetting the Stranger, the Widow and the Orphan will put her in the dog-house with G-d. Over and over, also in this Parasha, is she admonished that wrong-doing has its price. So why does she insist on wronging the Stranger? Why does the Modern State of Israel keep forgetting the Holy Charge given to her in ancient times? Deu 1:16 (2), Deu 10:18-19 (2), Deu 14:29, Deu 24:17, Deu 24:19-21 (3), Deu 26:11-13 (3), Deu 27:19, Deu 31:11-12 (2) – to treat the Stranger equal to the Home-born?

This makes me think that the consequences of not caring for those, also those not Jewish, that need it or to wrong ANY human being, is the terror wrought on Israel today. Deu 27:19 is tied to Deu 16:20 by the word JUSTICE – the promise of life and prosperity for the pursuit of Justice is echoed in Deut 28:66, in a manner that almost makes my skin crawl. How can she not see this, and what will it take for her to wake?

Talking Torah in Lieu of Politics – Daniel Sieradski

I grabbed an excellent Blog by Daniel Sieradski this morning, after reading it with increasing joy and dread I decided that I liked it, and that in general I agree with what he has to say, and wish I could have said it just as well.

“I began by saying that you’re never going successfully appeal to the sympathies of the American Jewish community on behalf of Palestinians. Why should we care about people whom, by and large, we believe are trying to kill us? Rather than focusing on the conflict as a Palestinian rights or even human rights issue, when speaking with other Jews, we should focus on the occupation as a Jewish issue. How is the occupation bad for the Jews? How is it bad for Israel? What are the sacrifices we’re making, in terms of lives and resources, in order to hold onto the Territories?”

This is a novel idea to me. For the longest time I have been discussing with Pro-Palestinian Antisemites on-line, always on THEIR terms which naturally leaves much constructive discourse to be wished for, and I realized that much time have been spent explaining WHAT I DO NOT BELIEVE, in response to their violent and hysterical allegations both against me, as a Jew, and the basic ideas THEY believe I stand for. This idea of discussing what is going on in Israel from a Jewish perspective, in terms of what is the cost in resources, but also – I think – in credibility. As one of the more moderate debaters in a Group expressed it, quoting one of my Torah Blogs:

“The fact that others do not live this way, does not free Israel from her Holy Obligation of pursuing Justice nor does it give Israel a mandate to disregard the plight of others, when there is a need or when there is an opportunity to practice Torah. ‘How can Israel be a Light to the Nations if she does not Shine?’

How indeed?!! “

This idea too was echoed by Daniel Sieradski, and though I might not agree with him totally on the solution (there are after all other ways of practicing Judaism and Being Jewish, than Orthodoxy) I think it’s achievable if presented solely as a matter of Being Jewish:

“But more importantly: What is it that we’re fighting to preserve by having a Jewish state? What is it that we stand for as a people? And what is the value of having a state if, in the process of establishing and defending it, we sacrifice that which we represent in the world (or otherwise alter that representation to be something no longer consistent with our tradition)? I went on to say that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for the Jewish people to do teshuvah: To turn back to G-d and embrace the Torah.”

The question this raises with me, is exactly WHAT is “our Tradition”? If it means that we all have to become haredi and eat glatt kosher, I think it will be both counter-productive in terms of the long tradition of tolerance that Judaism emcompass, and impossible to implement – there simply are too many secular humanist Jews that value their critical thinking and independent understanding of what it is to be Jewish.

“We’re all the children of Adam. Love your brother as yourself. We’re all created in the image of G-d. These are the values we stand for: The unity of being. The oneness of G-d. The fellowship of humanity.”

Do I hear an echo of Dr Ellis Rivkin here? I like this – I loved his book “The Shaping of Jewish History“.

This, I hope, means that Daniel Sieradski realizes the predicament of the Stranger, as out-lined in Written Torah in terms of the right to practice Torah and embrace G-d without the distortion of what some consider to be the only “acceptable Tradition“. After all, the Stranger has always been part of Jewish Life and Tradition.

“…whether we’re committing a chilul Hashem (a desecration of G-d’s name, via the desecration of our legacy as a righteous nation) or a kiddush Hashem (sanctification of the name, via embodying the highest principles and aspirations of our tradition). Thus, it’s a more effective strategy for addressing the issues surrounding Israel and the occupation.”

I have noticed that many Settlers are not aware that they are being sold land that is not Israel’s to sell. Organizations aimed at facilitating aliyah for European and American Jews deliberately lie about the legality of land deeds, and actively encourage Jews to Settle in the Territories. One example is Elkana:

“Elkana or Elqana is a Jewish settlement in the Samaria region of the West Bank. It was founded in 1977 and as of 2002 it had a population of 4,000. It was established as one the earliest settlements after 64 Knesset members signed a bill to allow the use of state land in the area for construction.

Elkana is sited just to the east of the Green Line, and is adjacent to the city of Rosh HaAyin. From Wikipedia

From Tehilla Web-site:

“Where else but Elkana can you have such a variety of davining closeby? We have nine synagogues and umpteen minyanim. We’re heavily into Torah learning — daily adult Kollel (men and women), huge Bnei Akiva, non-stop shiurim, and many Daf Yomi groups. Where else but Elkana can your children attend school close by all the way through college? Elkana has pre-schools, a mamlachti dati elementary school, Yeshiva and Ulpana from 7th-12th grades, and Orot College for girls. Where else but Elkana can you enjoy a wealth of cultural activities? We have an active Community Center with chugim for children and adults, and we’re only 35 minutes from Tel Aviv. Elkana has the warmth of a yishuv, together with the opportunities of a large community. And, as a local council, where many of our leaders are second generation Elkana-ites, we decide everything for ourselves.”

Chilul Hashem, indeed.

And painful to know, because it means that dismantling those Settlements will mean heartbreak and grief for people who worked hard to make a life for themselves.

Broken Peace – Parasha Pinchas

One of the most powerful commentaries on Pinchas’ act is written into the very fabric of Torah itself. The Masoretes – the 8th and 9th century rabbinic sages who codified the written Torah into the version we know today – instructed that the word “Shalom” in the term “Brit Shalom” should be written with a broken letter vav. As a result, every Torah scroll now bears this inner message: peace achieved through zealotry and violence is an incomplete peace – a “broken peace,” as it were.For an era beset by growing violence committed in “the name of God,” this one small pen-stroke makes a profound statement indeed… From Radical Torah

I cannot help but feel that this ties in with what I wrote last year on Parasha Shoftim and Parasha Ki Tavo.

If a Peace achieved by zealousness is considered a Broken Peace by Torah itself, then it raises the question what is a WHOLE Peace?

Perhaps the answer lies in what Pinchas failed to recognize in his zealousness – Chessed – Compassion – Justice, the righteous punishment for a crime cannot be meted out without Compassion. A willingness to look beyond the actions of the other and consider all the details of his or her motivations, rather than assume the actions are all there is to a person, or a nation.

Perhaps we need to step away from “G-D” for a while and not assume that just because we read it in Torah it’s the entire Truth? Or maybe we need a new way of reading Torah?

Again I am reminded of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov: “there is truth, the truth of the truth, and peace. Truth is: a kid stole an apple. The truth of the truth is: the kid was hungry. Peace is: Nobody stole anything; give the kid an apple!” (Heard from Reb Shlomo Carlebach)

Zealousness, like anger and love has a tendency to cloud our judgment. We are so caught up in the feelings of the moment that all we see is that something dear to us is being violated, and while Pinchas was right on principle, by the Letter of the Law, he lost sight of the Spirit of the Law, and that’s where his peace became a broken one – he forgot the truth of the Truth and Peace in his fervor for G-d.

In my later Blog Entries I have gone after Israel pretty badly. Quite honestly I feel that she deserves it. I love her, she is my Home, though I don’t live there, she is the one place in the World where I know I have a place, should I ever need it. But I also think she is way off base. There’s nothing wrong with her zealousness. She’s got Chutzpah alright – but she is forgetting Compassion. She has gotten stuck in the role of Pinchas, and while it might bring some sort of Peace and Salvation for the Jewish People, it won’t be a whole, lasting peace.

Shalom Shabbat!

What “Zionism” are we talking about?

I store several ideas for blogs in My Drafts. Those drafts are very often side-thoughts that pop up when I write on any specific topic – or they are ideas I get from people who used different search criteria to reach my Blog, given the general nature of my Blog, “Zionism” is bound to be one of them.

 

My Blog Entry Zionism, A Security Problem gave birth to some thinking about different kinds of Jewish Nationalism – and what kind exactly the Fundamentalist Anti-Zionists are protesting. The most violent are protesting the very existence of Israel, and in fact all Jews:

When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.”

They are attacking Jewish Nationalism, i.e the Jewish People’s right to a National Home and Self-Determination – that is pure Antisemitism.

 

Like this Canadian Politician they make no distinction between Israel, Jews and Jewish nationalists “Zionists”:

“I never separated the Zionists and the Jews in this thread or anywhere.”

“Get a clue and realise that we are now past the stage of denying the evils of Israel and the Zionists and have reached the stage of a backlash against said groups for the bloody terrorists they are.”

So where to draw the line? When is Jewish Nationalism no longer a matter of just exercising the right to Self-Determination in accordance with the UDHR article 15 and UN Resolution 181?

 

When it encroaches on the rights of others to exactly the same or violates already existing territory that belongs to other Nations in accordance with International Agreements. This includes the 1947 UN Partition Plan, regardless of whether the Arab League and/or the Palestinian Arabs accepted the partition or not – Israel did and is therefore bound by it.

 

This the Anti-Zionists mentioned before cannot dispute, as that would mean they are themselves in violation of International Laws and Agreements.

 

Unhealthy or unacceptable Jewish nationalism would include any Jewish Nationalism that carries with it an idea of a “Greater Israel”, whichever manner this would be achieved. One cannot, however much one wants to, invoke religious texts or religious belief as validation of Ownership in secular matters, as has often been the case with Jewish Religious Movements, based in-side and out-side Israel.

 

Jewish Settlements out-side the borders of 1947-1948 must be dismantled, and any political policy that aims at creating Settlements out-side those borders must be deemed illegal according to International Agreements.

 

Jewish Nationalism must remain at it’s simplest – Jewish/Israeli national Self-Determination within the parameters of UN Resolution 181.

Zionism, A Security Problem

I just read an article/interview with Gilad Atzmon – I disagree with basically all he has to say – except when he quotes Avrum Burg allegedly quoting David Ben-Gurion:”I think it was Ben-Gurion who said that “the Zionist movement was the scaffolding to build the home, and that after the State’s establishment, it should be dismantled”. It is pretty easy to see why David Ben-Gurion would say such a thing – there would no longer be a need for when its goal, a Jewish Homeland, had been achieved – just as there was no longer a need for Lehi after the Brits had left. Any land acquisition out-side the 1947-48 borders goes beyond what has been agreed upon.

Yes, I have friends in i Settlements in Palestinian Territory, and I think they should move, I think they are wrong to be there – even more I think the Israeli Government is wrong to “give” them living space there.

Nothing says that Israel cannot accommodate all Jewish Immigrants inside the 1947-1948 borders. Except a hoard of variations of the term “Zionism”. I also suspect another thing is playing into Israel’s reason to expand on Palestinian Territory – most of the Jews making Aliyah are from the US, well to-do middle-class people, who can’t or won’t move into something that is not pristine, well-supplied Suburbia-like neighborhoods. If such neighborhoods does not exist inside Israel, then the Israeli Government creates another security zone on Palestinian soil and builds a Settlement there. Why? Because Israel needs the money those Americans bring.

I just took a look a map of Israel and the West Bank – and honestly, I cannot see how those small dark-green patches from a point of view of strategy are not huge security problems.

Map is from here

It does very clearly raise the question – Why? There is a Jewish Homeland, so why want more? There is room for 13 million Jews in Israel. Why put civilians at risk for the sake of an Idea? Normal thinking Nations move their civilians out of harms way, out of war zones – it makes no sense to move civilians into a war zone, it’s bad politics at best and insane at worst. That wasn’t what the early Zionists wanted or even thought of when they immigrated.

The first Zionists didn’t move to ready-made neighborhoods after making Aliyah – they worked them up from the ground on land they had bought with honest money.

Zionism was never meant to be a political tool against anything – it was meant to be a political tool for something. There is a Jewish Homeland – the goal has been achieved – now, let’s dismantle the instrument that achieved it.

“Zionism” is obsolete and it more than anything functions in its antonymic meaning as a cover for Antisemitism, and in today’s society a more proper word would be Jewish Nationalism, which would also uncover the Antisemitism expressed by those opposed to Jewish Nationalism in it’s simplest form:

“Nationalism, in its broadest sense, is a devotion to one’s nation and its interests over those of all other nations.^[1] The term can also refer to a doctrine^[2] or political movement^[3] that holds that a nation—usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture—has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny.”

In its simplest form, Nationalism is the same a National Self-Determination:

“The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite. It is commonly used to justify the aspirations of an ethnic group that self-identifies as a nation toward forming an independent sovereign state, but it equally grants the right to reject sovereignty and join a larger multi-ethnic state.”

Now that this has been clarified it is possible to look at Israel of today and determine if the nationalism practiced by the Israeli Government is a simple exercise in Self-Determination or not.

Looking at the map above – knowing that the borders of 1947-48 are not being honored, it is quite easy to see that we are not looking at National Self-Determination, but at National Expansion. Israel is expanding at the expense of the Palestinians.

In my mind this is immoral, and I am amazed that honest religious Jewish Immigrants will actually accept homes that are an intrusion on someone else land against International agreements.

Fundamentalism

All fundamentalism is Religious in nature. The MO of Fundamentalism is the same regardless of whether it is Evangelical or Marxist-Atheist. Both approach the world from the position of “I am right everybody else are wrong!”

“Please don’t ask me to read your holy book with an open mind. I can describe my mind as open, but not so open that my common sense fails me. Don’t you see? There’s a fundamental flaw with this request, and it’s staring you right in the eyes. There’s a huge elephant in the room, and yet you close your eyes to it! This is the assumption that a holy book can somehow validate itself.” Don’t ask me to read your holy books.

Fundamentalism of any flavor is based in the assumption that it is The Truth on the given subject. It doesn’t matter if you ask me to read the Greek Scriptures or Noam Chomsky…both will in the end turn out to be an attempt to prove themselves through themselves.

I am fully prepared to discuss the merits of just about any “Holy” Book or Doctrine but don’t tell me that I would change my mind if only I read it, because chances are that I already have and to suggest that I haven’t is both presumptious and arrogant.

One of the things I have done is question my own positions again and again. I actually do that more than any Fundamentalist, any flavor, I have met in real life or on line. Fundamentalism in itself is a negation of open-mindedness, because the very idea od fundamentalism is static, and an open mind is never static.

So I have read Marx, Chomsky, Finkelstein, the Greek Scriptures, the Koran and then some more – and sure they have all helped shape my thinking and my views on things, but nowhere in any of them have I found an Absolute that cannot be questioned.

Circular arguments are fun – it’s like watching a dog chase its own tail – round, round, round in endless motion,

and while it is amusing to watch for a few minutes, especially when you realize that it only takes a little poking to get the dog going again…, it becomes kind of boring after a while – just try it out, and see how fun you think that video is after you have watched it 10 times…

Most entertaining is the Fundamentalism of Atheists. Fundamentalist Atheists are most often VERY religious about their non-belief – even to a point where they will use books they do not believe in to prove their point!