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.
'
Sunday, 24 February 2013
Saturday, 16 February 2013
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:
Thursday, 14 February 2013
Monday, 4 February 2013
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.
Sunday, 3 February 2013
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.
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.
Friday, 1 February 2013
Ode on Independence
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.
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....
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....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)