Will pose for peanuts :)

Sorry, I may be nuts, but I don't carry any. :)

Home sweet home

Shira's Shots
Sunday November 8, 2009

I recommend that you click on the photos--they look better in close-up.

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers.

If the Bet HaMikdash/Holy Temple were rebuilt . . .

. . . this would be the result.

Is that really what we want?

Pink posies

Shira's Shot, Nov. 17, 2009

Philanthropy-phobic :(

Since we seem to give to Jewish charities all year long, we try to give to secular charities at the end of the year. But we may be limited this year, much to our dismay, due to unanticipated Jewish charitable needs.

Parshat Toldot:Callous indifference,or senile dementia?

Those who'd like to review the story of the stolen blessing can read it here.

The rabbis of Pirkei Avot (Verses ["Ethics"] of the Fathers said, "Turn it and turn it, for everything is in it . . . " (5:26) It never ceases to amaze me that I spot new things every year, though I've been reading the weekly Torah-reading portion/Parsha/Sedra every Shabbat/Sabbath for over 35 years.

And what I spotted this year was a shocking indifference to his sons on the part of Yitzchak/Isaac. The only reason given for him loving Esav/Esau is that Esav was a good hunter and brought him venison. (See chapter 25, verses 27-28.) Is that all? And he couldn't give his son a blessing without being bribed? Since when should a child have to bribe a parent to get a blessing?

And what the heck kind of blessing is this?

כט יַעַבְדוּךָ עַמִּים, וישתחו (וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ) לְךָ לְאֻמִּים--הֱוֵה גְבִיר לְאַחֶיךָ, וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְךָ בְּנֵי אִמֶּךָ; אֹרְרֶיךָ אָרוּר, וּמְבָרְכֶיךָ בָּרוּךְ.

29 Let peoples serve thee, and nations bow down to thee. Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee. Cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be every one that blesseth thee.

And what the heck kind of blessing does he give the robbery victim, Esav?

מ וְעַל-חַרְבְּךָ תִחְיֶה, וְאֶת-אָחִיךָ תַּעֲבֹד; וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תָּרִיד, וּפָרַקְתָּ עֻלּוֹ מֵעַל צַוָּארֶךָ.

40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and thou shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt break loose, that thou shalt shake his yoke from off thy neck.

Did Yitzchak actually want his sons to kill one another?

Then, of course, there's the interesting question of how on earth Yitzchak could possibly have been fooled, and/or why on earth he allowed himself to be fooled, by a trick so transparent that even he pretty much "saw" through it, blind though he was.

One of the women at the minyan at which I davvened/prayed this past Shabbat suggested that Yitzchak was "losing it." Frankly, that's just about the only logical explanation I can think of for his behavior, which I find close to bizarre. After all, as someone at that same minyan pointed out, Yaakov/Jacob ended up with 12 sons, and somehow found a blessing for every one of them. (Okay, so some of us Documentary Hypothesis fans may say that the blessings were written long after they'd come true, but still . . . )

Let's review the facts. The Torah itself tells us that Yitzchak was 60 years old when his twin sons were born. (See chapter 25, verse 26.) He must have been at least 75 at the time of this story. Senile dementia at that age is not necessarily out of the question.

This might also account for the active role played by Rivka/Rebecca in this story. Sure, she was playing favorites. But under the circumstances, what would you expect? Did she really want the leadership of the family to be left in the hands of a man with so little ability to delay gratification and to prioritize that he'd traded his birthright for a bowl of soup, or would the family be better off in the hands of a man who was clever enough to figure out that he could get away with such a trade? Clearly, Yitzchak didn't have a clue. Clearly, Rivka was going to have to figure out a way to call the shots. She connived to get the blessing for Yaakov, then saved his life (assuming that Esav would really have acted on his threat, which is debatable) by finding a pretext for getting him out of town quickly. But of course, since she was only a woman, she got no credit. Yaakov never thanked her for anything, and it never seems to have occurred to Yitzchak, or, interestingly enough, to Esav, that she may have had anything to do with the theft of the blessing. Nor does Yitzchak credit her with the idea that Yaakov should go back to her family to find a bride. Ah, the joys of being a woman in the good olde days. :(

This past Shabbat: A mixed review

I'm no longer comfortable going to Shabbat/Sabbath afternoon programs at my current favorite Manhattan synagogue. I just don't get how one can have a s'udah shlishit (traditional "third meal" of Sabbath) without Minchah (Afternoon Service) before it and Maariv/Arvit (Evening Service) after it. I'm no longer comfortable doing the Shabbat-closing havdalah ceremony without davenning/praying Maariv first. So Ms. Holier-Than-Thou skipped the program and hopped on the subway to davven Minchah and Maariv at home. Yeah, go ahead and insert roll-eyes emoticon here.

On the other hand, it was nice to be commandeered practically before I even had my coat off because the minyan with which I intended to pray was short a tenth person. I also enjoyed leading Musaf, even with the distraction of the pre-school kids chasing one another repeatedly around the amud (prayer leader's reading stand). :)

Blue on green

Shira's Shot, Nov. 11, 2009

Parshat Toldot:Aftermath of 1st recorded shidduch crisis

A 40-year-old first-time bridegroom. A 60-year-old first-time father. (See verses 20 and 26.)

I'll say this for Yitzchak (Isaac)--he was a lot more considerate of Rivka (Rebecca) than his son Yaakov (Jacob) would be of his wife Rachel. At least Yitzchak prayed for his wife to have a child (see verse 21, same link), whereas Yaakov just yelled at Rachel for being upset over being barren. (Okay, she yelled at him first, but he could have offered to pray for her.)

Harvest time in the city

Shira's Shot
Sunday, November 8, 2009

If you want to see some really good photos, check out Leora's and Brooklyn Wolf's blogs. Both of them are much more skilled photographers than I.

Religion & politics: I'm on the fringe, as usual :(

You would think that, by now, I would have figured it out, but I keep forgetting that people tend to assume that I'm as liberal in my politics as I am in my religious practice. I keep forgetting that it's safer for me to keep my big mouth shut on the issue of Israeli politics, because, unlike many of my non-Orthodox friends and acquaintances, I gave up on the Peace Now camp after the Summer 2006 War (the Second Lebanon War?).

It seemed to me fairly clear, after Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians and the Palestinians attacked Israel from that same territory less than a year later, that the Palestinians and their allies were far less interested in creating a Palestinian state than in forcibly ejecting Israelis from theirs. Now, every time I open my mouth on the subject of the "Matzav/Situation," I just get into trouble. :( I have friends who're still involved in Peace Now, and others who accept the findings of the Goldstone Report. Oy. I'm half inclined to say that Israel should do its own investigation just to give the lie to those who think that Israel is trying to cover up its "crimes." Seriously, folks, what country in human history has ever been able to wage a war without civilian casualties (and what other country whose civilians were being attacked would be condemned for waging a war)? The Goldstone Report, if accepted for all nations, would permanently change the rules of war. But of course, it's not intended for all nations, it's intended only for the Jewish one.

Fiery fall foliage

Shira's Shot
October 30, 2009

I may not be posting much for the next few days--major project at the office.

Invisible disabilities: Aliza's plea for tolerance

See this important post by Aliza Hausman. Been there, done that. In the final analysis, it wasn't our son's mild-to-moderate hearing loss that made it difficult for him to fit in anywhere, it was his delay in developing age-appropriate social skills. (See here, re dyssemia and here, re pragmatic language deficit. And no, I'd never heard of these disabilities, either, until I ended up with a kid who had them.) We got thrown out of the nicest places, and the folks in shul weren't always so welcoming, either. :(

An urban autumn :)

Shira's Shot
Thursday, October 29, 2009

A question of modesty (tzniut)

A few weeks ago, Brooklyn Wolf asked whether risque fashions saved tzniut/modesty. Here's part of his discussion:

"Tznius, would, in essence, say that only outfits that fall within a certain middle region of the curve would qualify as tznius. Too far to the left and you're attacting attention for being too dowdy (think about the comments that the Beit Shemesh burqua lady was getting -- even before the more serious allegations came to light) and too far to the right and, well... you're just not tznius anymore."

And part of a comment:

Mike S. said...
One would think that tzniut were an obligation only of women, and only with regard to sexual display. This is not true--men's clothing is also regulated, as are other kinds of ostentatious display. Ostentatitious display both of wealth and of surface piety are prohibited. The latter ought to include clothing that ostentatiously covers more than normal."

Let's follow these thoughts with this discussion of "yuharah" (variously translation as presumptioness, religious arrogance, religious self-righteousness) by Rabbi Marc Angel. Take your time reading it--I'll wait.

Back yet? Okay.

Here's my question: Why are so many women in the Orthodox community careful to walk a fine line between attraction attention by being too dowdy and attracting attention by being too, well, attractive, while some of the men go out of their way to call attention to themselves by wearing such blatantly attention-attracting attire as streimlach and bekeshes? Why is calling attention to oneself considered immodest for a woman, but perfectly acceptable, and even laudable, for a man?

I don't remember where I read this, but didn't one of the rabbis of a recent century (the Chofetz Chaim, perhaps?) forbid his students to wear their arbah kanfot/tallit katan (usually worn under a shirt) with the tzitzit (fringes/tassles) visible? Whatever become of that standard of discrete piety?

"Who is a Jew," UK version: a GoldaLeah must-read

GoldaLeah, of Go West, Young Jew, published "Explosive: Who is a Jew? UK Version" over the weekend. Here's my "take-away:

"A secular court has ruled that a Jewish school is not allowed determine the Jewishness of its students based on Judaism's own standards.

Wow.

According to the court, instead of determining if you are Jewish based on whether your mother is Jewish or had an Orthodox conversion, the school should base the definition of Judaism "on faith, however defined".

Seriously, there must not be a single Jew anywhere near that court.

When, ever, has being a Jew been defined on "faith"? How many of us Jews (Orthodox, Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, Conservative, etc.) could easily pass a faith test? Could you have passed it yesterday? What about tomorrow? How many of us would have to give up calling ourselves Jewish because we don't "practice" our Judaism enough?"

This is quite disturbing, and a cautionary tale: There's a price to be paid when the government gives direct subsidies to religious schools.

Parshat Vayera: Something old, something new

Here's something old concerning Yishmael/Ishmael, and also something old about the Akeida/Binding of Isaac.

Here are some new thoughts that I had yesterday:

The commandment of brit milah/ritual circumcision and the announcement that Sarah would have a son were given at the same time, and the text says very clearly that Yishmael was circumcised when he was thirteen years old. (See Parshat Lech L'Cha, Genesis chapter 17.)

Now here we are, in Parshat Vayera, with Yitzchak/Isaac conceived, born, and weaned, and yet the text of Genesis chapter 21, verses 14-16, describes Yishmael as a "yeled," a boy. Here's a translator's nightmare: "va-tashlech et ha-yeled." Did Hagar cast the boy under a tree, or did she send the boy under a tree? Unless my Hebrew is completely off, either translation would be correct. The translator chooses "cast." Why? Aside from the obvious problem that parents don't generally throw their children, the kid must have been around 15 years old! The original Hebrew alternates between calling Yishmael a yeled (boy), and a naar (youth). Were two different texts cobbled together here, with the seams showing, as usual?

And why does Sarah disappear from the text? Where is her reward for having ensured the perpetuation of Avraham's lineage by offering her handmaid as a surrogate mother? Where is her reward for having waited over a decade after the birth of her handmaid's son to have a son of her own? Where is her reward for having saved Avraham's life twice--and enriched him in the process--by allowing herself to be passed off as only his sister and not his wife? Her reward is to have G-d, with her husband's cooperation, threaten the life of her only child? My own midrash: No wonder she dies in the next parshah--if this is her reward, why live?

HaShem's chutzpah

• From my response to YC's comment to this post: "Also we are talking 13 yrs later (between Hagar having a child and Sarah having a child)" So why should G-d even be surprised, much less offended, that Sarah was skeptical? What did G-d expect?"

• Then there's that little incident in which G-d planted a tree in Gan Eden and gave the order that the fruit of that tree was not to be eaten. What, the G-d who created humans curious didn't know that we'd eat from the tree? Gimme a break!

Why did G-d punish Adam and Eve and rebuke Sarah, when it was G-d who set them up?

Quote of the day

From the comments to this post by Bad for Shidduchim:

Rule of thumb: the age gap is too big if you could have been in high school with your future mother in law.

Comment by Miriam — November 4, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

"Broccoli" harvest

To track the growth of this "broccoli" from the beginning, see here,
and click back to my earlier photos

Shira's Shot, October 30, 2009

Too old for hip-hop, so to speak . . .

. . . or "Geezers on the dance floor"

I've probably mentioned that I've decided to apply the same, er, semi-logic to my year of aveilut (mourning) for my mother that I apply to S'firah--I try not to listen to music, but I do go Israeli folk dancing because it's the only exercise I get.

So there I was at Ruth Goodman's Monday night session at the Kraft Center (Columbia University/Barnard College Hillel) when she started teaching a new dance. Partly through the dance instruction, she demonstrated a hop--and three of us alte geezers left the circle immediately, two with bad knees and yours truly with a bad foot. You can't keep a dancer down, but you can sideline one temporarily. Ah, for the good old days when I could dance for hours without even noticing it.

The irony of the fact that Ruth Goodman is older than I am is not lost on me.

A typical Conservative B. Mitzvah celebration?

Item: At a recent Bar Mitzvah celebration in a Conservative synagogue, the Bar Mitzvah boy chanted the first b'rachah (blessing) over the haftarah (reading from the prophets), then the first and last paragraphs of the haftarah. The closing b'rachah over the haftarah was chanted by a friend of the parents. "Dan l'kaf z'chut, judge everyone favorable," said the rabbis, so I perhaps I should give the young man the benefit of the doubt and assume that he may have had some disability that made even what little he did an accomplishment.

Item: At a recent Shacharit/Morning Service with my "Kaddish minyan," a young man had his first aliyah, apparently in preparation for his upcoming Bar Mitzvah celebration. His mother's comment to a friend was unclear--either the previous Shabbat/Sabbath was the first time the Bar Mitzvah boy had attended a Shabbat morning service, or it was the first time he'd actually prayed, instead of reading a book during services.

Item: At our local synagogue, the cantor had to lay down the law and tell a "candidate" and his custodial parent that his Bar Mitzvah celebration would not take place unless the young man attended Shabbat morning service every week.

Full disclosure: Our attempts to make a shul-goer out of our son were a complete failure, due largely, in my opinion, to the fact that he was the only kid in our congregation who attended synagogue almost every Shabbat. By the time his Bar Mitzvah celebration rolled around, the only reason he was attending Shabbat morning services was that the rabbi required him to do so. (What, you expected him to listen to us at that age?)

How on earth are we supposed to raise our kids observant if we don't, or can't, get them to participate in religious services? And how can we get them to participate in religious services if the culture of many Conservative synagogues militates against making prayer a priority? When did dance classes become more important than davvening, and soccer practice more important than synagogue attendance?

Lech L'Cha/Vayera smackdown, or G-d's a sexist

Josie noticed it right away, and, leaning over to Debbie, asked why, when G-d told Avraham Avinu (Abraham our Father) that Sarah Imeinu (Sarah our Mother) was going to get pregnant and Avraham laughed, G-d said nothing about his laughter (see Parshat Lech L'Cha, Genesis, chapter 17, verse 17), but when G-d told Avraham again that Sarah was going to get pregnant and Sarah laughed, G-d rebuked her (Parshat Vayera, Genesis, chapter 18, verses 12-15)? Debbie nonchalantly informed her that the quote from Lech Lecha was from the E strand and the quote from Vayera was from the J strand. So I checked the choice of names used for G-d, and, sure enough, the Lech L'Cha quote uses Elokim, and the Vayera quote uses HaShem (er, the name of G-d that begins with a yod in Hebrew and a j in German and English). (For further explanation, see Documentary Hypothesis.)

I've complained before that G-d isn't very fair to Sarah. For openers, if G-d's already planning on Sarah getting pregnant, why doesn't G-d bother telling anyone before Sarah gives Hagar to Avraham as a surrogate mother? For closers, why is that the only time G-d ever speaks directly to Sarah, it's to yell at her?

Green building on a gray day

Chelsea, Manhattan, New York City, 18th Street & Broadway
Shira's Shot
Tuesday, September 16, 2009

This building is green in more ways than one: If you look at the photo closely--click for a closer view--you can see that the smaller windows actually open. Let's hope that this is a harbinger of a greener future, with no more hermetically-sealed "boxes."

P. & I discuss patrilineal descent & conversion

Anonymous started it in a comment to this post of mine, asking ""If the C movement officially allowed patralineal descent, would you cease affiliation with the movement?"

Then Julie Wiener got in on the act in this New York Jewish Week article, reporting that "Rabbi Robert Levine of Manhattan’s Congregation Rodeph Sholom . . . argues that matrilineal descent, only codified in Talmudic times, was itself a departure from biblical tradition and was a way of adapting to problems of that era: specifically, challenges faced by Jewish women who bore the children of non-Jewish men."

The Punster said he thought that, just as matrilineal descent was a response to a challenge of Talmudic times, perhaps “equilineal” descent--a policy of considering a person Jewish if either parent is Jewish--might be an appropriate response to the challenge of our own time. He's not so sure that he'd leave the Conservative Movement if it accepted patrilineal descent.

I, on the other hand, accept the logic of my first rabbi after moving to New York, which is that policies that affect the entire Jewish community differ from policies that do not. For example, what I serve in my home doesn't affect the whole Jewish community--what my synagogue serves does. The ordination of women and/or gays as rabbis does not affect the entire Jewish community--some accept such ordinations, some do not. But nobody's going to argue that the child of a (straight or lesbian) woman rabbi is not Jewish. The definition of "who is a Jew" does affect the entire Jewish community. If memory serves me correctly, my first rabbi in New York left the Reconstructionist Movement when it started accepting patrilineal descent.

So, on the one hand, it would be consistent with this approach for me to leave the Conservative Movement if the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards voted to accept patrilineal descent.

On the other hand, I have a huge problem--if I became Orthodox, I would have to consider the conversions of some old friends of mine to be null and void.

How can I suddenly decide that an old friend, who's been Jewish for over 25 years, who persuaded her husband, raised a secular Yiddishist, to try synagogue (much to the dismay of his mother), whose kids are Jewish day school graduates, who keeps a kosher home, and who has served on her synagogue's board, is not Jewish just because she was converted by a Conservative rabbi?

How can I suddenly decide that another old buddy who's been Jewish for over 15 years, has served as an officer of her synagogue, keeps a kosher home and is more observant than I am, is not Jewish just because she was converted by a Conservative rabbi?

The Punster feels the same way. Looks like the Conservative Movement is stuck with us and we're stuck with the Conservative Movement.

Orthodox Judaism and freedom of speech

For me and my husband, becoming Orthodox Jews would certainly pose some challenges, but not all the challenges are obvious.

"Shver tzu zein a Yid, It's hard to be a Jew" (not sure about my Yiddish transliteration) is certainly an obvious challenge. Giving up eating in non-kosher restaurants and becoming much stricter about kashrut in general, and giving up taking motorized transportation on Shabbat/Sabbath and Chagim/major holidays would be quite difficult. Among other things, and in a not-so-nice double whammy, making just those two changes in our observance would force us to desert our Seder host of roughly 20 years. :(

Another obvious challenge would be putting my egalitarianism on the back burner, at best. As I've often said, it's not the mechitzah--the divider separating men and women in an Orthodox synagogue--that's the problem, it's everything that doesn't go with it. Sitting in a separate section from my husband wouldn't be the end of the world. But never again being allowed to lead certain parts of a service, even in a Women's Tefillah Group, or, in a mixed group, never again being counted in a minyan, having an aliyah, leining Torah/chanting from the Torah scroll, or chanting a haftarat/reading from the prophets would be major sacrifices. And there's also the distinct possibility that my acceptance in the community would be conditional upon my never again being seen in public in my tallit and tefillin, traditionally considered to be for men only.

But there's another, less obvious issue that might make switching to the Orthodox camp even more difficult, if not impossible, and that's what appears, both to me and to my husband, to be a limit on what an Orthodox Jew can say in public and still be accepted by the Orthodox community.

Here's an excerpt from my review of Equality Lost: Essays in Torah Commentary, Halacha, and Jewish Thought, by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin:

“ . . . My understanding is that rabbinical interpretations of Jewish law were handed down orally by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai, along with the Torah sheh-bi-ch'tav, the Written Law (specifically, the Chamesh Chumshei Torah/"Five Books of Moses" [Genesis through Deuteronomy]). Exactly how literally is one to take this idea? Here, Rav Sheshet and Rav Shmuel combine their artillery to say that "in the same way that gazing at a woman's little finger is tantamount to gazing at her private parts [Rav Sheshet], so too, is attentively listening to her voice [Rav Shmuel]." (Page 68) I'm sorry that I can't find a less offensive way to say this, but my first reaction to this logic is that "the Emperor has no clothes." To me, the whole notion that a woman's pinky is as erotic as her erogenous zones is patently absurd, and I cannot for the life of me comprehend why on earth half the Jewish people should be forbidden to listen to the other half sing (which, in practice, means that half the community is forbidden to sing in the presence of the other half) based on such a blatantly ridiculous idea. My pinky is too sexy to be seen, therefore, I must metaphorically tape my mouth shut in the presence of men??!!!!!!”

As you can see, there's a reason why I'm not exactly known as a paragon of diplomacy. Much as I try to behave myself on my blog, I think that Dilbert, an Orthodox Jew, was much more respectful in this nicely-reasoned response than I was in this post.

dilbert said...

“. . . I accept the Talmud as interpreted on down the line, as authoritative. However, to paraphrase my father-in-law, it is the substance of the Talmud that is authoritative, not the specific conclusions. In other words, the Talmud gives us a number of options. I cant reject an opinion because I think that Rabbi was mistaken, or had a bad day. However, I can conclude that a different stated opinion should be followed. Remember, the Talmud is not a monolithic set of laws carefully and systematically set fowards. There are many conflicting opinions that are sometimes reconciled, and sometimes not. Using our tradition, we have to find the right path among the many."

Wed Jul 12, 12:34:00 PM 2006

On one hand, it's good to know that Orthodox Judaism has some "wiggle room," in that, to some extent, one can choose one's interpretation.

On the other hand, if I think a rabbi is mistaken, why can't I reject his opinion?

This isn't a rhetorical question. Look at the response Brooklyn Wolf got when he asked whether it's really such a terrible thing for a man to behave in a civil manner toward women. Not only did Brooklyn Wolf, who's Orthodox, come under attack for stating his own opinions, he was even attacked for letting others state our own views without having our comments deleted:

Shira Salamone said...

Somehow, this issur (prohibition) against talking to women under most circumstances strikes me as remarkably similar to the issur of kol isha (the prohibition against a man listening to a woman sing). In my opinion, both prohibitions seem to indicate that the rabbis had a very low opinion of the ability of males to control themselves sexually. I would say that not only are the issurim (prohibitions) themselves an insult to women, the attitudes on which these issurim appear to be based are an insult to men.

October 08, 2009 1:04 PM

Aaron S. said...

I am quite astounded that the blog owner here has allowed to stand many comments that are clearly Mevazeh Talmidei Chochomim and are openly Bizayon HaTorah.

If this isn't hefkeiros and apikores mamesh, nothing is.

October 08, 2009 1:09 PM

Yes, the opinion that I presented in that comment is my honest opinion. Yes, this is the way I think and express myself, both when writing and when speaking--as the saying goes, "I call them as I see them." And yes, from an Orthodox perspective, it's "apikores mamesh," which I believe means "truly heretical."

My husband and I have discussed this issue, and we both have the same problem. We both take Judaism "seriously, but not necessarily literally," as I wrote in the masthead to this blog. And both of us have a very difficult time conceiving of belonging to a community that, no matter how observant we became, would toss us out if we ever stated our true opinions on matters of Jewish law and/or belief in public.

Some good news from the NY Jewish Week

From a few weeks ago: On the occasion of the opening of Yeshivat Maharat

From this past Friday: On the occasion of Yeshivat Hadar becoming a year-round program

Palestinians shoot selves in feet

From "Netanyahu Seen Tying UN Gaza Report To West Bank Withdrawals," from the New York Jewish Week.

“ . . .a senior Israeli official said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has . . “been telling European leaders that he wants to withdraw from areas of the West Bank, but that he has to be sure Israel will be able to defend itself,” said the official. “He said that if Israel left an area and Hamas or Islamic Jihad came in and launched rockets at Israel from there, there would be a problem if Israel could not defend itself.

>
“To avoid that, he said he preferred not to give up territory,” the official said.

Alpher pointed out that this same scenario has happened in both southern Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli troops that were in both areas to ensure peace left only to find Palestinian terrorist groups move in and begin firing rockets into Israeli civilian populations.

“If the international community in its collective judicial wisdom punishes us for defending ourselves from cross-border attacks from land we withdrew from ... we have to be careful not to put ourselves in this position again,” said Alpher, who is also co-editor of the Israeli-Palestinian Web site BitterLemons.com. “If our hands are tied as far as responding militarily, then this is a consideration against withdrawal that we didn’t have before,” he noted.

Before the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the Goldstone report in Geneva last Friday, Alpher said, Israel had always believed that “in the worst-case scenario if we withdrew and they attacked, we would respond. Now we have to ask ourselves if we are free to respond ...”

It would be the height of irony if the State of Israel used the Goldstone Report as a justification for refusing to make any more territorial concessions. And frankly, it would serve the Palestinian terrorists and their supporters in the United Nations right.

. . . & furthermore (grumbles Shira with Katrina)

. . . I second her complaint about independent minyanim (see end of the same post by Katrina to which I linked in my previous post), which is not about what they're doing, but what they're claiming:

"--This article reminded me of the independent minyan movement, which drives me up a tree. I think that it was laudable for the founders of the movement to try to create great environments for meaningfuldavening (praying) when they couldn't find it elsewhere. Then their heads got a little big when various philanthropists and journalists (including in the Forward) said they were the living end. But the bottom line is, AN INDEPENDENT MINYAN IS A SHUL. Hadar just opened its own yeshivah, for pete's sake. Its founders are having kids, and those kids will need Hebrew schools and bnei mitzvah and the like. Then they will buy buildings, or at least more permanent spaces, and basically provide all of the same services as shuls, possibly without rabbis, but Hadar has had rabbinic figures as well. And some small shuls in the Midwest and so forth don't have rabbis. So what is a shul, really?"

My own complaint, since I'm a few years older than Katrina, is based more on recent North American Jewish history. What makes the independent minyan "movement" think they're doing something new? What are we, chopped liver?

Framing the discussion: Point & counterpoint

Ben Dreyfus*, in an essay posted here (hat-tip--Larry Lennhoff, in the comments to this related post), said: "For liberal Judaism to thrive, it must develop frames to see itself as authentic on its own terms. Orthodox Jews aren't doing anything wrong by viewing Judaism through Orthodox frames, but we as liberal Jews are missing an opportunity by failing to see Judaism through our own liberal Jewish values.

This framing problem manifests itself in subtle ways. When we refer to Jews of other denominations as "more religious" or "more observant," we undermine our own standards of religious observance, and judge ourselves on a scale external to our own Judaism.

Consider this phrase: "I'm not shomer Shabbat: Every week I light candles after sundown and then drive to synagogue." The speaker obviously observes Shabbat but is allowing someone else to define what Shabbat observance means.

Furthermore, one version of this frame (problematic even for Orthodox Jews) equates "religious observance" solely with ritual observance. "

Katrina is not happy about this essay, as you can see:

" . . . he doesn't offer any solutions, aside from the vague imperative that the movements reframe. . . . "

. . .

"--What about history? The idea of what Shabbat observance is has been influenced, to a large degree, by what it meant in the past. Of course, you may say, but Katrina, what about all of these crazy Orthodox people who pile chumrah upon chumrah in their Shabbat observance? They
don't care about history either. But that's precisely what offends Shomer Shabbos people such as I and half the J-Blogosphere about the crazy Orthos. The Jewish people do have a sense of what "Sabbath observance" means. If the liberal movements want to change the way that they talk about Shabbat, they will likely have more, rather than less, success, if they don't trample on concepts that people understand and may even be attached to."

. . .

"Regular people who come to synagogue don't want to talk about how they frame their Judaism. They want to talk about how to live it."

This could make for a very interesting discussion. The floor is open.

*My Sh'nat haSh'mittah/"Sabbatical Year" teacher.

Parshat Noach: Another fine mess

(Here's the first fine mess.)

Might as well start with DovBear's post. I'm linking to his Parshat Noach post through mine just because I'm too lazy to set up that link explaining the word Parsha again.

Okay, here are the problems that I see.

• B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 6: Noach/Noah doesn't protest when HaShem, er, Elokim, says He's going to destroy all living creatures. HaShem, Elokim, oh, man, do I have to scrounge up that link to the Documentary Hypothesis again to explain the different names of G-d? Sigh. Here it is.
  
• Why doesn't HaShem, er, Elokim choose some species-specific plague to wipe out the human race only? What did the animals do to deserve to be wiped out? For the record, I think I swiped this thought from GoldaLeah's B'reishit Noach post, which you should definitely read.
  
• B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 7, verse 2: HaShem--yes, HaShem, not Elokim--tells Noach to take seven of every clean beast (male and female), and two, male and female, of every unclean beast. Nu, exactly how is Noach supposed to know which animals are "clean" and which are "unclean" when that list isn't mentioned in the Torah for at least another book and a half?
• Poor explanation: "Therefore was the name of that place called Babel (Bavel), because there HaShem confounded--balal--the language of all the earth . . . (B'reishet, Genesis chapter 11, verse 9.) Bavel comes from balal?? Wrong consonant, sorry--not even in the transition from Ashkenazi to S'fardi, or from S'fardi to B'nei Edot HaMizrach (Children of the Communities of the East, e.g., Syrian, Iraqi, Yemenite) pronunciation, where they've been known to say "tob" rather than "tov"and "panav" for "fanav," can one substitute the letter bet for the letter lamed. Close, but no cigar.

On the plus side, at least the "begats" specify "sons and daughters."

Philanthropy-phobic :(

See the comments.