DSC00353.JPG

Please, forgive me!

Today, the Jewish nation is mourning the destruction of both Jerusalem temples. The second one, according to the tradition, was destroyed because of baseless hatred (sin'at chinam). Hatred, which is unexcusable, abominable and to be erased from our minds.
The problem is, that we became so insensitive, that we even do not feel, when it comes. Worse, we became masters in reasoning and excusing all negative feelings, hatred and impatience towards the other. We even dare say: There is no baseless hatred. All people I hate I hate for a very good reason.
Well. If we really want to see the temple rebuilt, it is high time we changed our attitude. It will certainly also lead to smoother preparations before Yom Kippur, when we are obliged to ask for forgiveness people we hurt in the past year, intentionally or unintentionally.

There are only a couple of limited reasons, when a Jew is permitted to 'hate' (and even then, the object of the hatred is the behaviour, words, acts and not a person per se). I am not an expert in this, but what I understood from the teachings, the only hatred that is permitted is towards behaviour that is clearly against the Torah (I am not talking now about myriads of examples when we think a person acts against the Torah, while in fact he only acts against our understanding of the Torah, which might be partial, of even wrong).

If I have a problem with my neighbour, I have to solve it. Not to keep it inside, which inevitably leads to bad sentiments and baseless hatred. What is true about neighbours is the more so true about family, friends and our partners. We certainly do not want to reach the point, when we hate them and we even do not know why! Talk, talk, talk. In respect and dignity, but talk it over!

Another issue that came upon my mind was the art of saying sorry. How easy is to say this word, how easy is to avoid saying it, and how easy is to completely underestimate its impact on the recipient.

Anyone would agree that if I hurt someone intentionally, misbehave, shout at him, call him names, I should apologize. No matter what the reason was (it is the other's turn to apologize for that, if proper).
Some people think, however, that if they hurt unintentionally, there is no reason to apologize. And that is the source of misunderstandings, bad sentiments and hours of silence. Why should I apologize even when I 'didn't mean it'?
The answer is: empathy. Empathy is one of the precious stones, that Hashem gave to the people. To feel sorry for the other's pain. It can be learned. It should be learned. It is something that makes us more human beings.
Empathy is not the sign of weakness. It is the sign of personal strength.
If I insult or hurt someone unintentionally, by mistake or not paying attention to words, by saying 'Sorry' I actually say 'I didn't mean to hurt you, but still I am sorry you feel bad because of what I did/said.'
As a comparison we can use the following example: If I step on someone's foot, it is quite clear I didn't mean to do that (that would belong to the pathology of interpersonal relations, which is not the subject here). I didn't mean to cause pain. Still, I say sorry. Why? To show I care. Some people might mistakenly think, that by saying sorry they accept some guilt, that they are opened to be blamed for this and that and who knows what else. That is why they refrain from saying Sorry. No, no. It is far easier. By saying sorry we just say: 'I am sorry it hurts. I am sorry I caused the pain, even if unintentionally.'

This is something that breaks the ice. It strenghtens the relationship.

You might think: Why to write about such a trivial issue? It is a commonplace! A second thought will however reveal, that the reality nowadays is quite different. We do not pay much attention to what we say, or when we say that. We are many times in such a rush that we see only the goal and we run to reach it, not looking to the right and left.
Apathy got the stage. Apathy and idifference means an end to 'humanity', as set up by Hashem at its creation.

Now go and see, what is good.

The education of the masses

Afternoon mood

Fear of change

As a rule, people strive to be better, not worse, than they are now. But many times, we do not want to improve our ways, we want to stay where we are. This is the place of safety. We know it well. We are familiar with its good and bad points. Any change, for better or worse, is accompanied by this strange feeling of loosing yourself. This is true about individuals living alone, and the more so about couples who share their lives, experiences - in short, life paths.
There is no need to add, that if we resist any change, we just stay on the same place for the rest of our lives. We remain alone in the landscape of our childhood, instead of becoming part of the landscape of someone else - our children (in the same way our parents had to leave their landscapes of childhood in order to create a setting for us).
There is even more tricky thing about the fear of change. When we are alone, we have absolutely no problem to improve our ways. That is at least what we say. And we even do that. And we bear all responsibility for the decision and for making it happen. And nobody intervenes. This change is purely voluntary. And we feel the piece of cake is just ours! Congratulations! Free choice.
What happens when we are two? We also change. Some changes are inevitable (when two people start to live together, they both adjust a bit their daily, weekly, yearly routine), some are the result of being together. Maybe the better word would be transformation - we both are being transformed as a result of being together. Hey! But if this is a psik reisha, where is my free choice? And here comes the more difficult part. As if there was a contradiciton: The transformation is inevitable, but we still freely choose to undergo it. Sounds familiar? Jewish people received the Torah on Mount Sinai freely (na'ase ve-nishma), but at the same time Hashem held the mount Sinai above them, saying: If you do not receive the Torah, I will drop on you this mount and you all will die. We need to understand, that this act did not exclude the free choice. The Jews freely chose to receive the Torah to keep it, but sometimes we need a little reminder (not direct one maybe, but also the fear of punishment might be this 'negative' drive to fulfill the mitzvot, that we have hardships with). Sometimes we do mitzvot with enthusiasm and smoothly (na'ase ve-nishma), sometimes it is hard and we need to remind ourselves there is a covenant and we are obliged to keep it even when it is not so convenient (har ke-gigit, Hashem holding the mount above us).
I dare to say this is true also in relationships and therefore there is no contradiction between inevitable and voluntary. When we choose to spent the rest of our life with someone, we do so freely. When we are together we still have choice to make the life of our partner and ours better. Sometimes we have a lot of enthusiasm, sometimes less. When we have no drive, then we can remind ourselves, that this is a covenant (as opposed to a business contract). Like between Hashem and Jewish people  - it is no accident, that this relationship is described in terms of marriage. But in order not to put the partner under stress, it should function as a self-reminder: I recall my part of the covenant. And I trust the partner to do the same. Trust (in Hebrew emun, which is directly related to the word emuna, usually translated as belief) is the essential part of the covenant, both between a man and a woman and between Hashem and Jewish people.
Now, the process of transformation in marriage has an interesting aspect. Little changes we undergo are indeed our success, but as opposed to being single, our partner has his or her merit in this, becasue our change was enabled by being together (of course we do not talk about continual criticism and cynic remarks, that rather have devastating effect). It is our success, and we should be thankful for that. It is our spouse who traced the potential in us, and helped us to make the best of it, just by the fact, that he/she stands by our side, nothing more. The piece of cake is shared.
The fear of future change of ours might be also stemming from our false self-perception, that we actually are  already now perfect. If we think so, than our fear of change is bigger, because if the change happens, it means we were not that perfect.
So lets abandon all fears, lets admit that we are not perfect and lets keep in mind our partner want the best for us, as we want for him/her.

Marriage? Marriage!!

Recently, I have been asked a tricky question: What is marriage? Is it the way how we meet our needs? Is it something we need? Or is it a mission? 'Do you want to get married because you need it (tsorech) or because you believe it is a mission (avodat Hashem)?' Well, the answer is not that simple.
My impression is, that unless people felt the need to share their lives with another person in an official framework, they simply would not have done that, and the world would have come soon to its end. It is fact, that we need it. That is our nature. There are many personal needs that can be met only, if we have a partner - and these needs may be the most banal and of physical nature, and they might be of a very spiritual nature.
But, in order to succeed in the marriage, once we get married, we should switch the approach to the 'mission' mode. Marriage is a mission. Two people who share life goals and want to reach them 'davka' together. During this mission, we make efforts to meet the needs of the other, as well as we articulate our own needs, so that our partner will be able to meet them. We are thankful to each other for these efforts (thankfulness and appreciation are alef bet of the Torah, as we learn from the reason why Amon and Moav cannot become our brethren). That is part of this mission, and yes - also the path itself is essential part of the goal.
Mission accomplished is the biggest reward for all efforts that we make in our lives (see the picture). That is the true satisfaction (and I can imagine the granchildren playing on the playground in front of this older couple).
Personal happiness can be reached only when we are able to be happy as we are. It should not be dependent on the other, on his/her efforts (of course, I am talking about a healthy, communicating couple, that are not intentionally or unintentionally hurting each other all the time).
This mission is like a serious game, where we do not compete, but rather help each other to reach the end. We can succeed only when both partners play the game, while keeping personal integrity. And most important - please let us not turn our own comfort into an ideology.

What happened on the fields to Kain and Hevel?

Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, and she said, "I have acquired a man with the Lord. And she continued to bear his brother Abel, and Abel was a shepherd of flocks, and Cain was a tiller of the soil. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it." And Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" And He said, "What have you done? Hark! Your brother's blood cries out to Me from the earth. And now, you are cursed even more than the ground, which opened its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand. When you till the soil, it will not continue to give its strength to you; you shall be a wanderer and an exile in the land." And Cain said to the Lord, "Is my iniquity too great to bear? Behold You have driven me today off the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from before You, and I will be a wanderer and an exile in the land, and it will be that whoever finds me will kill me." And the Lord said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be wrought upon him sevenfold," and the Lord placed a mark on Cain that no one who find him slay him. And Cain went forth from before the Lord, and he dwelt in the land of the wanderers, to the east of Eden. (Bereshit 4, 1-16)

Rav Sharki gives the following interpretation to the fourth chapter (the commentary is based mainly on pshat, almost the literal meaning of the words, and a bit of a Midrash):

According to the Jewish tradition Adam had marital relations with Chava before they were expelled from the Paradise. We learn this from the first verse: "Ve-ha-Adam yada et Chava ishto" (instead of Va-yeda ha-Adam, see Rashi there).
When Hevel was born, Kain understood that he is no more THE son, but he has from now a competitor. Thus, already at the birth of Hevel, the murder was anticipated. Kain was born egoist, into the reality, where there is no competition. Hevel was born into the reality, where he understood, that he has to share - therefore he will give the best to the other, and the rest will keep, unlike Kain.
Kain says: I am egoist by nature. What do you want from me, Hashem? This is my nature and I cannot change. But Hashem interrogates and challenges, and reveals a novelty:
Kain, you have, as a human being, a free will. You can choose how you will be, how you will act and react. And therefore, being born as an egoist is actually an advantage, because you can choose to be good (while your initial parameters were negative), and it will be understood as a greater achievement than being born good and righteous. The free choice is a reaction on our initial parameters, not their function.
Hashem says to Kain: If you want/choose to succeed, you will win (Im tetiv, set.). But if you do not use the power of free choice, the sin is there waiting for you. But even there, you have the power to overcome it.
What was Kain's reaction? 'And Kain said to Hevel, his brother.' Until now, he didn't call Hevel his brother. Now, when Hashem told him he can revert his 'fate', he comes to Hevel and says: You are my brother, lets live in peace. But what happened afterwards? They tried to speak, but it did not succeed, and the story ended by death. Fields is the space of nature, of competition - that is a hint to the subject to their conversation. Whatever it was, they quarreled (opinions are many: they argued about the crops and the cattle, about a woman, or holy sites; there is also opinion that they talked about something, that was not even considered conversation, and that is why the Torah doesn't note it). This teaches us, that we know from the beginning, what are the source of quarrels, wars and murder. Nevertheless, our free choice stands above them all, because human morality is more than human animal nature (if we choose so). [As I understand it, when we wonder why people are bad and why they sin, why they hurt other people, and are immoral, I do not wonder about the fact they do these things, but rather about the fact they choose to do them, despite they can choose to act rightly. This is not a mere detail in understanding, but a huge difference - between naivity and morality.]
Kain chose not to use his free will for good, and murdered his brother. His punishment was to wander in the world - a fate that is completely against his sedentary nature (agriculturist). Because the soil, his occupation was the source of the sin, it was necessary to disconnect him from the soil to correct his path. In the end, he really undergoes some amendment.
What was the sin of Hevel? Why did he die? It is written: 'And Kain stood up towards Hevel, his brother, and killed him.' (4, 8). It means, that he lied on the ground - Hevel knocked him down. But he did not used his advantage to kill Kain first. He didn't understand, that had he killed Kain, he would not been called murderer, as the justice was on his side (he only defended himself). It follows, that Hevel did a fatal mistake by not killing, when he should have done that in order to save his own life. That is the hidden sin of Hevel, which is only hinted in the Torah. After that, Shet was born - a better version of Hevel. A person, whom Kain cannot kill, because he defends himself, but at the same time he doesn't become like Kain.
What a surprise then, when Kain blames Hashem for the murder: 'Am I my brother's keeper?' He says actually: Hashem, you were his keeper, and you still let me to kill him. Why do you then rebuke me? I used the possibility of free choice, which was what you wanted me to do. Hashem answers: 'What did you do?' You didn't kill Hevel because you wanted to fulfill my will (leshem Shamayim), but rather for low reasons. And therefore it counts as a sin.


The big lesson of this story is simple, and argues for example with the Greek mythology, based on determining parameters and an inevitable human disaster. The Torah acknowledges human nature, its flaws and negative potentials, but it teaches us, that it is not only a possibility, but also a moral command, to surpass this nature and live in congruence with the given moral.

If-games

Had he gone after another,
the pain would be bearable,
had she accepted all the pain,
he would have found another one,
had they left all their fears behind,
they would laugh as an old couple
had they abandon obsessions they had,
both could have settled their mind,
and their happines would be double,
and they would live a long life.

Challenges II

A month ago, I started a contemplation on challenges that we have in our lives. I received one response, which I could identify with (see there). My impression is, that dealing with challenges is either tabu or something everyone knows how to do but me.


The three conclusions, I made in the end are not conclusions I made, but rather attempt to show, how the subject can be wrongly grasped. Now I will try to see, what are the alternatives.
1) The wrong conclusion was: I can bear anything that happens. I must succeed to overcome all life challenges smoothly and with elegance. People who hurt me are heavenly messengers, and I should maybe thank them.
Correction (inspired by the commentator):
It is true that Hashem loads on us a lot of difficulties, but he does so in order that we find a right response, and grow. The rule seems to be - the more precious the lesson, the more painful the way to it.
People who hurt you have their own account with Hashem, and it is not your business to drive conclusions about them and their account, except for the fact, that you might want to avoid them next time. They are not heavenly messengers.



2) The wrong conclusion was: I don't want to be righteous, it really doesn't pay. It is easier not to strive for being a better person, because good people have it more difficult. Alternative reaction: If I find something very difficult, it means I am righteous.

Both statements are obviously a nonsense. Sometimes, we tend to make our lives easier saying - I am not capable to do this and that, because I am not at that spiritual level. Well, it is up to everyone of us to know what we strive for and how we want to get there. Sometimes less is more, but many times we can do more than we think.

If I have many difficulties, it is not a sign of my righteousness, as nicely said: It is more a sign of potential than actual. If I find a proper response to difficulties, it may help me to come closer to being righteous.


3) We should look forward to any challenge, and we should even look for it actively, as challenges lead to spiritual growth.
This is absolutely wrong. We ask Hashem every morning, that he spare us all trials and challenges. We are not here to look for them. The truth is, that we have to many of challenges even without trying to catch any opportunity to be challenged.


Well, how easy it seems to be!! The problem is - and that is why we find ourselves many times in trouble - that not always we choose a proper response to a challenge. Too many times we hope for a miracle, too many times we rely on things, facts, and people that are not reliable. Too many times we expect the others to change, without being ready to change ourselves, too many times we load on ourselves more than we can bear thinking that this is what Hashem surely wants from us.

And that is why I think, that what I wrote might be nice and true, but it still does not help me to know, what to do.

The only lesson that never is the wrong one, is, as is written in this week's chapter of Pirkei Avot:

'He who has the three attributes is among the disciples of Avraham Avinu [...]: A good eye, a humble mind and an undemanding soul...' (PA, 5:22)

May we be able to be like Avraham Avinu, and may we learn right lessons from the most difficult challenges we go through.

Thunder in the summer Jerusalem?

This is the time to think, what we have and how we proceed. At least, we can draw a line or two and imagine we start a new chapter. Whatever we do, we will feel the sweet presence of the Almighty and his justice. Yes, there is a hope, but we have to see it in the right corner...

Parshat Acharei Mot-Kedoshim

A few thoughts on the last double-Parasha, Acharei mot - Kedoshim.

'You shall not defile your daughter by making her a harlot, lest the Land fall into harlotry, and   the land be filled with immorality.' (19, 29)

You may like it or not, but prostitution, even though seen as the oldest profession in the world, doesn't belong to the Jewish system of values. Certainly, if a girl is still under the auspice of the parents, she is not to be submitted to a man for his pleasure. We can ask, what happens with the society, where young women live for a long period before they get married out of the parental house and can independently choose what to do. It seems to me that the story goes as with other aspects of morality - since the world today is more open and people are less bound by structures, they are at the same time challenged more in the field of morality. Their right choice has higher value, because it is technically so easy, the world does not condemn that, there is almost no stigma. Therefore, I think nowadays a single girl simply should behave to herself as if she was her own father (however ridiculous it sounds). The message is still clear - harlotry is something that should not happen in Eretz Yisrael.
(And a question remains: Is harlotry halachically to be understood in the wide terms of Rashi?)


'A male who lies with a male as one would with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination...' (20, 13)

Although a sensitive subject, especially in religious society, it must be talked in proportions. Here, I understand, with the help of Rashi, that the forbidden male-male relations are those, that emulate the male-female sexual relations (see Rashi there). Any other intimate relationship between two men can be viewed as strange, not ideal or whatever, if we want to criticise, but not as immoral from the point of view of the Torah. 

This does not help so much those who would like to see one-sex marriages (if so, we should probably re-define the institution of marriage), but it definitively can help those who struggle with their own homosexuality - not because they would feel themselves problematic, but maybe only because of the negative reaction to condemnation by people around.

And a bit of life experience - not related to this Parasha, but to my recent Shabbat guests. There first or second visit in Israel. They looked around. They saw rosemary plants, birds, ficuses, everything in much bigger version than to be found abroad. Suddenly, everything seemed to them so huge. And I could not help not thinking of the first visitors to Eretz Yisrael after Exodus - the spies. What was their impression? What did they bring backto show the soon-to-be olim chadashim?

Well-Intended Advice

This is the story of a physiotherapy both addict and victim. In order to help potential captives of this wizzard, I decided to share a couple of tips, that may help to soothe the painful process of healing (first stage) and the following - unexpected - process of breaking the excercise-addiction (second stage).

Lets randomly decide, solely for a better illustration, that an injured and soon-to-be-healed limb is the arm.
(Due to the sensitivity of the subject, no names will be mentioned, unless otherwise stated.)

1) Even though your physiotherapist breaks your arm, he is your friend. He does that for your own good.
2) If he breaks too many limbs, that might be a sign, that he is no more your friend, but a sadist.
3) If you are bitter about having just one hand in use, do not give way to the sentiments! It has numerous advantages: You are exempted from many tasks at work, you are excused when dressed up loosely, you have now a  justifiable excuse for shopping delivery, cleaning help, long siestas etc.
4) Do not argue with your doctor/physiotherapist about the proper way to deal with the pain. As a rule, the doctor will say something else than the physiotherapist. Follow your intuition and the advice of your Grandma.
5) When a physiotherapist suggests taking some more rest in between the excercises, take him seriously. It is not a joke.
6) When a physiotherapist says you should try to give him a slap with your injured arm, do not take him seriously. It is a joke.
7) A few tips for excersices at home:
- Do not excercise before your morning cup of coffee/tea/juice/schnapps. It might be counterproductive (not sure whether this is related to the morning dosis of your preffered beverage, or to the time span between getting up and the exercise).
- Do not use a broken chair for the sitting exercises.
- If you use a plastic bottle to lean on, while sitting, make sure it is empty, or - if filled - that it is sealed.
- If you use an umbrella instead of a bar, it should not be the umbrella that automatically opens up.
8) When you sense some progress, let it make you happy, but do not exaggerate. It will take long time until you reach your normal condition. Remember, that while it is a good sign that you can dress up quicker than a week ago, there were times in the past, when it took you to half a minute, not 5 minutes, to put on the tights.
9) During the hydrotherapy, never ever get into the way of those who learn to swim. It might cost you another visit in the hospital.
10) You will probably join the group of seniors schlepping around in the swimming pool, slowly moving their arms and legs. Do not allow yourself feel old. You are an aqua bella acrobat!
11) If you run a blog, remember, that your typing skills are weakened. Write slowly, take breaks (try not to forget, what you had in mind), or type with one hand only (the healthy one). Yipe!
12) Most important: If you are single, don't cry that there is nobody to help you. There would probably be nobody to help you even when you were married, because you would have certainly tried to be brave and would not complain (and yes, this might be one of the reasons, why you are still single). If you are married and you wonder why your partner doesn't help you, just stop behaving as if you were brave and start to complain.

Some of you might also have similar experience. Do not hesitate to share. Physiotherapy is no more a stigma and it is definitely not the reason why nobody talks to you now!

Sunny day

 

שמש שימשה שמשייה לשושנה ושמעון שושניק

נווד נדד בנווה נידח - נודניק

Shabbat afternoon and Pirkei Avot on the stage

'Yose ben Yochanan of Jerusalem says: Let your house be open for relief and let the poor be members of your household.'

While sitting on the balcony and reading the Mishna from Pirkei Avot, children were playing outside, supervised by their mothers. Birds were singing and the sun was shining. Regular post-Pesach Shabbat.
A group of people passed by, it was close to the time of the third Shabbat meal. One of the passing women entered our little jungle and asked for the possibility to use a bathroom. Even though she was pregnant, she apologized saying, that she was on her way from Bait Vegan, and has still a piece of walk in front of her, and... One of the women stood up and took her to her house. Everything was so obvious, so clear. No hesitation.
I decided to share the story, because from what we hear from the news, read on the internet etc. shows the world in the darkest possible colors.
And here I received, in the middle of Shabbat rest, a very nice and compact practical example of what I have just learned in the Mishna.
The one-minute story had an additional comforting dimension: The passers-by were charedi and the women who 'let their house open' were dati-leumi, and that fact was completely irrelevant in that situation - another proof of how blindly we follow the black-and-rarely-white news, reporting on fierce battles and sin'at chinam (baseless hatred)  between various Jews. Yes, these battles exist, but there also exist numerous Jews, who, regardless their social profile, 'love peace and pursue peace' (Pirkei Avot 1, 12).
Shavua tov!

Wuthering heights

The day today opened its arms and received us, who waited for it patiently, yet eagerly, with a merciful and gladsome gesture. Even though we felt happy - it came again, and we had the pleasure to witness the blue, the white, the green, and blue again, this symphony of colors - there was also a taste of a - - - no-change. But is the day responsible for being sometimes the same as the previous one? By what right do I blame it for my feelings of "same again"? Who will stand up and defend the poor day? Hey, where are you all, the so-called heroes of the night? 
Do I need to come and say the truth? Oh, I shall do that, if you do not!!!
Here am I, the simple and the dull, here I cry out: The day is not to be blamed! It did everything possible to make you feel re-newed, re-freshed, relaxed. It presented all its beauty, the wide scale of smells and colors, that only waited for your understanding, for your motion, for the moment you will take them and gave them the meaning. The day and its entourage waited eagerly for you, and you just stood there staring at the ground, looking for the miracle. It was there, behind your back... 

Challenges

In the course of our lives,  we many times find ourselves many situations that require a lot of strength to get over them. It may be a truly difficult examination, significant loss or encountering people who do something bad to us. While some of these situations are quite universal, many others have individual dimension. One and the same thing may be for one challenging, and for another it is just a minor bump on the road. 

Our tradition says (just to name a few) three interesting things:

1) Hashem doesn't load on us bigger yoke than we are able to bear.

2) Hashem has higher moral demands on righteous people than on average ones, and their challenges might be bigger than of the others.

3) Any challenge has a potential to help us grow. If we make mistake, even a major one, we can return to the right path (tshuva).

A superficial understanding, based on the culture of personal comfort, or alternatively on ascetic tendencies, would lead to the following conclusions:

1) I can bear anything that happens. I must succeed to overcome all life challenges smoothly and with elegance. People who hurt me are heavenly messengers, and I should maybe thank them.

2) I don't want to be righteous, it really doesn't pay. It is easier not to strive for being a better person, because good people have it more difficult. Alternative reaction: If I find something very difficult, it means I am righteous. 

3) We should look forward to any challenge, and we should even look for it actively, as challenges lead to spiritual growth. Everything has some positive meaning (but to say so, do we not just cheaply comfort ourselves?).

However, the tradition also says that these conclusions are completely wrong. Which conclusions are then correct? Or at least close to being correct?

(to be continued, suggestions welcome)

On religious dialogue

For quite a while, I have been wondering about the nature of a dialogue between various religions. There are many ways how to perceive such dialogue - the scale is wide, from missionary ambitions to its noetic values.  

The main question remains as follows (for people who define themselves religiously committed): Is there any possibility to retain the values, beliefs and principles of your own religion, while acknowledging legitimacy and validity to values, principles and beliefs of a different religion, when these many times contradict yours? 
Is not a deep interest and religious dialogue a mere, almost hypocritical, slogan? Motto of nowadays: Inter-religious dialogue. Who does not participate, is against peace on Earth. Do you say that your neighbour is not correct when he believes in many gods, while you believe in one? - You are not tolerant. And we - the progressive - do not tolerate intolerance. But who says I need to deny my own faith in order to live in peace with my neighbour?


I do want to learn about the neighbour. I want to maintain peaceful relations. What to do?
Basically, in order to have a successful intercultural dialogue (if we want so), we must at first accept the fact, that my partner in dialogue holds different axioms. Our premises, or starting points, are essentially different, sometimes even competing. Therefore, we can never reach a compromise, or some synthesis. We can agree upon particularities, but in general there can be no agreement. 
If we cease to understand this condition, any discussion on spiritual matters will be a disappointment, or even a catastrophe.
Only if we know, that we can reach no universal agreement, only then our discussion may bring some fruits. It might consist just of enriching our knowledge and learning new thing about the world, or, on a different level, may lead to practical cooperation in particular fields, where we can agree, if such a cooperation is needed. 

Ars disputandi of a medieval type, that aimed at finding one Truth (which led to the inevitable, and mostly prescribed denial of the whole religious system - method that is useful and needed when you want to clarify to yourself where you stand, but which is useless in a conversation), should be returned to its original meaning - investigation with no higher ambitions.

Path of life

Sometimes we think the source of happiness is somewhere high in the sky, far far away.

But it is not.

It is waiting for you here, on the Earth, patiently.

But not forever.

Forget about lofty ideas, skies and so-called-right paths.

Your Path of life is down here.

Social justice and divine justice

Many things can be said about justice. Even when we look at the justice from the point of the Torah, we still can bring numerous verses, commentators from here and there, and when we once immerse in the discussion, we may never get out of it, and even then we may never reach the point where we could say: Now we understood what exactly is incumbent upon us to do in the real time.

Therefore, I will speak shortly and touch only one aspect of thinking and doing justice.
Hashem is just. And he commanded us to pursue justice.
And Hashem is merciful and commands us to be merciful.
Does it contradict each other?
Here I would recall Rav Adin Steinsalz's comment: We need to acknowledge the profound difference between Hashem's and our knowledge. There are many suffering people in the world. Had I looked on this sad picture 'from the point of view' of the Almighty (as we say: hakol letova, roughly: Everything happens for a good reason), I would have let people suffer, I would have said: This is Hashem's will, let it be, I should not intervene. But then, I would be viewed as a cruel man. Rightly? Surprisingly enough, yes. How could it be? Had not I only accepted Hashem's decision?
The answer is to be found in the book of Bereshit, ch. 18-19. Hashem decides to destroy Sdom and Amora and some additional settlements for their wickedness. We would expect Avraham to accept Hashem's just decision. But no! He challenges Hashem's justice. And not only that. Our tradition sees this step as something Hashem expected the righteous Avraham to do!
This means, that on one hand Hashem supervises and rules over the world justly, but he wants us on the other hand to challenge him. Why? Because we do not know what he does know. Because with our limited knowledge and insight we cannot judge in the same way He does. We see just a part of the picture. This enables us, and actually this is our moral imperative, to help the needy, the suffering, to pray for the sick, to help one another. If we cease to do that, we will be portrayed as cruel. Rightly. And maybe even blasphemous. We pretend as if we had the same knowledge and the same power as Hashem does. That is why Hashem tells us to follow him 'modestly', and to emulate His attributes of love and mercy, not the attributes of severity and din (judgement). (It is important to say, that we talk here on the level of an individual, not about what is expected from judges in the courts).

Even if we are the most smart, insightful, logic, reasonable and rational thinkers, we still do not reach a tiptoe of Hashem's knowledge.
Precisely this limitation of human mind enables us to fulfil Hashem's will to be merciful, to be social, to create society, using the formulation of r. Jonathan Sacks, based on the covenant of cooperation.

Megillat Esther

As every year at the eve of 14th Adar (in Jerusalem of the 15th), we fulfil the mitzva of reading the Megillah, the ancient Scroll of Esther, as part of the Purim celebrations. 
The story of an attempted annihilation of Persian Jews during the reign of the king Achashverosh is widely known. I will share just a few thoughts, that came upon my mind during this years reading (well, rather listening).
Three questions:

1) Who was perplexed and who rejoiced in Shushan?
2) Did the Jews go literally after the king's decree?
3) Where did the mishloach manot (food portions to our friends) and matanot laevyonim (gifts to the poor) pop from, out of the blue?


1) Who was perplexed and who rejoiced in Shushan the capital?

It says: 'The couriers hurried out with the order of the king and the law was proclaimed in Shushan the capital. Then the king and Haman sat down to drink, and the city of Shushan was in turmoil.' (3, 15; the translation of the verses is taken from the Chabad site, www.chabad.org) the news spread very quickly. Everyone knew at instance, that there is a great pogrom planned on the Jews. A decree from above. This is the first time in the Jewish history when the ruler decides (pushed by his evil minister Haman, who even eagerly offers to sponsor the genocide) to let the Jews in his lands be murdered. This remained an unrepeated attempt, until the first half of the 20th century. There were numerous expulsion decrees from above and numerous pogroms launched and executed by the subjects of rulers, but rarely a combination of the two.
The city of Shushan was in turmoil... According to Rashi and Avraham ibn Ezra, only the Jews residing in the capital panicked. But there is an alternate opinion: Even the non-Jewish Shushanites were overwhelmed by the decree. They roughly said: Today the Jews, tomorrow it can be us (Or Chadash). 
Could it also be, that they had some friends among the Jews and simply were thrilled by the planned murder of them? Or, did they understand, that they might be asked to participate on the genocide? We probably shouldn't be overly optimistic, but who knows. They were informed ahead, had a plenty of time to contemplate, Persia was a thriving country - who would wish to spoil the present and the future of the city and the lands?

That also non-Jews panicked in Shushan is a minor opinion. It seems, that the parallel - yet with opposite meaning -  was less ambiguous. 'And Mordechai left the king's presence wearing a royal garment of blue and white, a large golden crown, and a shawl of fine linen and purple wool. And the city of Shushan celebrated and rejoiced.' (8, 15) Here, most of the commentators agree, that Jews and non-Jews alike rejoiced and celebrated. This view is supported by the next verse proper, which describes the reaction of the Jews: 'For the Jews there was light and happiness, joy and prestige.' (3, 16)
The genocide is averted. There is a good reason to rejoice. There is always a good reason for happiness when a righteous and modest people are to be found in the highest ranks of the ruling class (However, Mordechai's close ties with the court were reason for some contemporary Jewish spiritual leaders to reject him, as it is written: 'For Mordechai the Jew was second to King Achashverosh, a leader to the Jews, and loved by his many brethren.' 10, 3  - Read: Many brethren, but not all of them!).

2) Did the Jews follow exactly after the king's decree?

When the king Achashverosh enacts the edict of the annihilation of the Jews, the texts goes:
'Letters were sent with couriers to all the provinces of the king: to annihilate, murder and destroy all the Jews, young and old, children and women, on one day--the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar and to plunder their possessions.' (3, 13) 
When the king Achashverosh gives the Jews permission to defend themselves at the day of the planned pogrom (which could not have been cancelled), he gives the following formula:
'That the king had allowed the Jews of every city to gather and stand up for their lives; to annihilate, kill and destroy every army of any nation or province that might attack them, [including their] children and women, and to plunder their possessions,' (8, 11)

What did the Jews do in reality?
'The Jews gathered in their cities throughout the provinces of King Achashveirosh to attack those who sought to harm them.' (9, 2) ... 'And the Jews struck at all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying, and they did with their enemies as they pleased.' (9, 5) ...'...the ten sons of Haman, son of Hamdata, persecutor of the Jews, they killed; but they took none of the spoils.' (9, 10)
And after an extra given day to the Jews in Shushan:
'So the Jews of Shushan gathered again on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and killed three hundred men in Shushan, but took none of the spoils.' (9, 15)
And the score outside of the capital: 'And the rest of the Jews of the king's provinces gathered and stood up for their lives to relieve themselves of their enemies and killed seventy-five thousand of their foes, but took none of the spoils.' (9, 16)

The king simply gave permission to kill anyone, even the helpless, and take all their possessions. 
The Jews, on the contrary, killed only those who stood up to kill them, i.e. the enemy, and took no spoil!! That is something unprecedented in the military history of the humanity. 

It seems that the Jewish people, even when living in the midst of the culture, where a war spoil, rape, child murder etc. was an uncriticised commonplace, they kept with their moral standards, those that we are taught about in the Torah. (The Torah admittedly brings the cases of the - usually female - prisoners of war, as it doesn't ignore the social standards of some times and some cultures, but gives exact limits to what can be done to such prisoner, and a detailed guide how to treat him/her, which again is something beyond what was seen as 'human nature' in those days).


3) Where did the mishloach manot (food parcels to our friends) and matanot laevyonim (gifts to the poor) pop from, out of the blue?

Our last question leads to the 'after party' of the whole story. Mordechai, Esther and the Sanhedrin decided to coin a new festival, that would commemorate what had happened. Surprisingly enough, they chose two acts to be carried out on this day each and every year in every place, in every country, in every family: '... to make them days of feasting, rejoicing, sending food portions one to another and giving gifts to the poor.' (9, 22). 
We read that portions were sent by one to another spontaneously, as part of the celebrations. Tsedakah is something new. 
What do the two acts have in common and how they related to the message of the story?
The connecting theme in the megillah is the theme of 'unity' (or, alternatively, the lack of unity).
When Esther gives Mordechai instructions what to do, she says: 'Go and gather all the Jews...' (4, 16)
When the day of the pogrom comes, 'The Jews gathered in their cities throughout the provinces of King Achashverosh to attack those who sought to harm them.' (9, 2)
The message is clear. The Jewish people can survive as a nation only when it is united. This doesn't mean that everybody is the same, has the same minhagim (customs), the same political views or social ideals, but there must be a notion of 'imagined community' at any given time and in every place. Moreover, the various Jewish communities should strive for inner unity of the shared goal and peaceful relations. This is by no means an easy task, but the Megillah tells it quite clearly - we have no other way to survive.

Giving portions of food to our neighbors and friends and giving means (monetary or material) to the poor, is the easiest way how to promote and encourage the plan of 'unity'. And as such, these acts should be also perceived by us, the doers. Our tradition give some minimal amount of portions and gifts, and it is not a coincidence. It is better to give less, but with positive and proper intentions, than to give a lot, but with a bitter taste and against our good will.

May we experience the true unity soon, with our best efforts.




'

Topol in Jerusalem

Thursday morning was, for myself and about fifteen or twenty others, devoted to Czech culture. The occasion was marked by an interview with Czech writer Jáchym Topol, held in honor of the Hebrew translation of his novel Gargling with Tar (Legarger zefet, Achuzat Bajit, 2013)

The scene made a strong impression: warm orange, yellow, and red hues, wallpaper designed to look like bookshelves, and miniature models of trees—perhaps a nod to the recent Tu Bishvat, the Jewish New Year of Trees. Behind the stage, a vast glass window offered a view of mobile cranes in continuous motion; some futurist-minded attendees might have imagined a new Jerusalem railway station emerging from these movements. All these elements created an ideal backdrop for the discussion between Topol and his translator, Pierre Pe'er Friedmann

Beyond the obvious aim of encouraging attendees to read the book, the event held deeper meaning for me personally (and I hope to avoid sounding overly sentimental). Meeting Jáchym Topol was also an encounter with a rare type of creativity. It soon became clear that we were in the presence of someone who combined intelligence and erudition with genuine modesty

This realization brought into focus something that has long unsettled me about many contemporary thinkers—including myself. True modesty cannot be feigned; false modesty leaves a lingering bitterness, much like overt arrogance does. In this respect, I now have a new role model to aspire to. Thank you, Mr. Topol

For more info about the new release:

http://www.abayit-books.com/?p=5459

Almond tree

First the flowers,then the leaves/we may wonder,what that means

Little joys

They always promise to take you there,
where the sun rays flood the valley.
But they never tell you how
to find again your beloved alley.






                                              

Ode on Independence: Q&A

I have received an interesting comment. My reply was so long that I couldn't post it as a reply. Therefore, I copy here the reader's comment and my answer as an independent essay.

Comment: I like how you explain that independence allows our relationships to be based on something a lot deeper than simply satisfying physical demands of existence. 

The next question is what will hold these relationships together. The same dependencies which brought people together in the past, also kept them together. When we are independent, it is much more meaningful to start a relationship, but also much easier to end it. Are independent relationships going to have a much shorter half-life than dependent relationships, or will we find new ways to keep together?  (donabravanel)


Reply: 'What will hold these relationships together?' I was thinking a lot about your question, and something was hindering me from giving a plain answer. The question implies something interesting, but also sad. It implies, that relationships between men and women are held together only or primarily by mutual pragmatical dependencies. As if the longevity of a relationship was directly proportional to the sum of these dependencies. I don't pretend I know what is love or sorts of loves, or whatever makes people want to live together, but I assume, there exists something like that, that it is part of our DNA and our purpose in this world, and also the drive of the whole humanity.
I do not have answers, but I know the Torah says - Lo tov heyot ha-adam levado ('It is not good for a Man to be on his own'). It is a basic human condition, that we do not want to be alone, we want to belong to some unit (family, friends, religious group...). The need to love and be loved, to care and be cared, to respect and be respected etc. is one of the basic human needs, according to Maslow and many others. This can be a topic for an independent essay, where we have to reflect also the critics of Maslow.
Your second question is more interesting. Lets say we are naturally driven to be with someone. But you rightly ask, what will make us stay with the one person, we chose at the beginning? Maybe our mutual independence makes our relationship more fragile. Less viable.
I would like to answer in points, that may or may not be discussed further.
1) Independent relationships are more easily to be dismissed than relationships where people are dependent on each other materially, socially etc. This is the nowadays situation. It was at the beginning like opium. Divorce was no more stigma. Let's get divorced when we are not happy. This situation lasts for some while already. The tendency, I believe (learning from social evolution and from the basic needs of the society, and we assume society will prevail), is to get relaxed. The excitement about the option to get married and get divorced will slowly, but surely dwindle away. Why do I think so? 'Western' (I hate this term for its incorrectness and stereotypization, but so far have no better) society lives under the dictate of individualism for more than 400 years. Despite of this, it has not completely condemned the institution of the family. The family, in whatever form, is and always will be the basic unit of any society. There are always more people who will want to preserve the society, who will understand the importance of the family and act accordingly.
2) Any such process might actually be quite long, gradual, and painful. But it is important to focus on the positive, and to live your own life, your own actual relationship in such a way, that it will contribute to the overall outcome. Any point matters. As any other social process, it has to flow, it cannot be forced on the society. 
3) Slowly, but surely, there are also measures taken to reflect the emancipation of women and the needed emancipation of men. In many countries this is reflected in the custody law. I believe in future any parent who doesn't have child custody will pay alimony (provided that there will be fair wages for both genders), there will be possibility of dual custody (as a child from a divorced family I am happy it was not my case, however). Visitation of the non-custodial parent should be natural and both legally and practically enforceable. Unfortunately, in all these three fields many countries have lacunae and even where there are fair laws, we hear many sad stories about fathers and mothers who are forcibly and against their will disconnected from their kids. 
4) On the individual level, I have answered to myself as follows: Any relationship is a risk. You have no guarantees. The only remedy for any anxiety about 'Is my relationship going to survive the next semester?' is: Focus on the here and now. Have you learnt about your partner enough to trust him/her? Go for it. Do you have doubts? Leave it. What might happen, if you are anxious about the future of the relationship? You might start to be too restrictive, too controlling, you might demand guarantees that put a great stress on the relationship and might even put it in danger. I came to a conclusion that if I measure my 'investment' in the relationship through the prism of the back flow/return, unlike in the enterprise, I am threatening the results, more than ensuring the success.
5) There is an additional point, that I forgot to mention. Even if w are not dependent on each other existentially, we still are interdependent. And we still distribute tasks among us, so that we both give and give the opportunity to the other to give to us. I can cook, but it is nice to give the other the opportunity to prepare some nice meal to both of us. I can build my own Sukka, but it is nice to give the opportunity to the other to do it for both of us. Or, some people prefer to do many of these things simply with joint efforts.
There are two sayings in Czech that I try to keep in mind:
1) If you are afraid, don't go into the forest.
2) The biggest piece one gets from the denied bread.

To conclude (and this is the issue of opinion, not where the truth is) - maybe some independent relationships have shorter half-life than dependent relationships, but it doesn't take from it them their positive value. I personally prefer this type of relationship, trying hard it will prevail, than to have a wholly dependent relationship with no possibility to quit it (which is a wrong Catholic concept), in which I might make less efforts to make it prevail, but it would feel a prison (here I think we have to make a clear distinction between natural dependencies, which are fine and make nobody feel in prison, and artificially created dependencies in order to hinder from the partner any possibility to leave us).

Last, but not least: I am not sure actually I have a satisfying answer. My private solution is: My own efforts and prayer. 

Ode on Independence

Quite on purpose, I chose title that might be misleading.

I am going to write in short about how individual independence can contribute to the quality of a relationship.

When we are able to do anything and everything, when we are completely independent on others, when we do not "need" anyone to accomplish tasks for us (cooking, doing dishes, putting pieces of furniture together, driving, fighting with the authorities etc.), only then we can really appreciate being together. Our relationship is based not on exchange of products, but rather on voluntarily leaning on each other, appreciating what the other does for us, and giving ourselves out. We are replaceable in the tasks, and that up-grades our relationship, paradoxically, to the next level. 

Individual independence is the challenge of nowadays men and women. Women work, sustain themselves, in extreme cases they can conceive in absence of a real man. Men very well care of themselves, their households, their kids, even without a presence of a woman. At a first glance, this is a very horrid picture. And some people are quite afraid of the consequences of such social condition. This approach is predictable. It has a great psychological value, but a very limited practical value. 

However, I believe this condition has a great potential that is ignored.  If both men and women can do many things alone, their being together upgrades from the simple pragmatic dependency to conscious and mutual contribution to the 'being together'. 

Of course, this is not to say, that if we are not completely independent in carrying out these tasks, we are inferior.  Not at all. There always will be people, who are not good in cooking, driving, sewing, construction... And it is very nice to appreciate when someone does for us what we cannot do ourselves.

But too many people are rather independent in nowadays society. And yes, we always have the possibility to complain and weep over the spilled milk. We can regret, that men are too independent in the house and with kids, and that women are too independent financially and socially. 

But we can also take the challenge, get out of it the positives and move on. 

Why am I here?

Why am I here?


In the age of globalisation, this question might be very tricky.
Why am I here?  -  Where?
To start with, I will try to answer the question in its limited scope.
Why am I here, blogging on the web?

The answers are simple:

1) I like to share my opinion.
2) I enjoy when my opinion is challenged and there is some discussion.
3) I came to outbalance what I think is there to outbalance. And I came to open topics that should be opened, according to my opinion.
4) My private coming out: I am a demagoguery fighter.
5) ... and I enjoy playing with words.

So it is.
Nothing more.
Maybe less.
.
.
.
And maybe even more....

The artificial and the small

The artificial and the small
who is the winner of it all?

Smaller than small of all what matters
stands there lonely one of the letters.

Who dares to pick it,
before the wicked
take their turn?