Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas speaks at the 2007 World Economic Forum during a session entitled "Enough is Enough - Israel and the Palestinian Territories." Photo by the World Economic Forum.

According to a classified cable obtained by Haaretz, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, has informed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that Israel has no chance of preventing the U.N. General Assembly from recognizing Palestine as a state.

Prosor’s assessment is consistent with what has been observed for some time: that only a handful of U.N. member states plan to vote against the Palestinian initiative in the General Assembly, with an expected 130-140 countries voting in favor. And among Western nations, only five so far have pledged to vote against recognition of a Palestinian state: Italy, Germany, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the United States.

Of those five countries, which nation stands alone in refusing to consider changing its voting stance if the Palestinians include language indicating a continued commitment to peace talks with Israel in its U.N. bid? The United States.

America’s isolation is stunning. But it gets worse.

The United States is the only country currently standing in the Palestinian Authority’s way in its push to attain full U.N. member status for Palestine. In order to become a full U.N. member state, the Palestinians must go through the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), which consists of 15 nations, five of which have veto powers. One of those five nations, China, recently stated publicly that it would vote in favor of Palestinian statehood in the UNSC. However, the Obama administration has made clear that it intends to veto any efforts by the PA in the UNSC, effectively blocking any chance for Palestine to become a state according to international law. (For U.N. resolutions dealing with statehood to be legally binding, they must first be passed by the UNSC.)

Why is the left so weak in this country and the right so strong? There are many reasons for our sad situation, but one of the most important is the monetary advantage held by the right. This is a difficult problem to solve, but one vitally important piece of the solution has to be passing a constitutional amendment to undo the Citizens United decision. Corporations should not be able to pour unlimited money into elections and call it free speech. Corporations are not people, they should not have free speech rights, and money is not speech! That is just common sense.

I. Change the World Today!

“Reality does not exist on its own, in and for itself, but only in an historical relationship with the men who modify it.” Antonio Gramsci, The Prison Notebooks

“‘See, I have given over to you’- …the righteous with their words create new heavens and new earths, as the verse suggests: See, what I have done- I have given over to you that creating aspect of myself so that with your teachings you can create new realities of heaven and earth. Understand this.” Degel Mahane Ephraim, Perashat Re’eh

II.

This week’s perasha begins with a resounding cry (Devarim 11:26): “See! I am presenting before you all today, a blessing and a curse! A blessing such that you shall keep my commandments…and a curse should you not hearken unto my commands and veer from the way set before you today…” The commentators note several interesting points as they dissect virtually every word in this passage; we will note several. The repetition of the word “today” is of note, but this connotation of immediacy is made more curious by the fact that the actual “blessing and curse mountain happening” is not meant to occur at this time, but rather, much later, after entering the land and reaching Mts. Gerizim and Eval. The Kedushat Levi assumes that this set of verses is thus meant to be read atemporally; the blessing referred to here is not linked to those to be presented at Gerizim, but rather any time the commandments are heard, so to speak, that in itself, that relationship with Gd established as a result of hearing Gd’s voice through the commandments, is its own reward.

Are there temporal readings of this passage, that take “today” to point to a moment in time? For the sake of completion, let us start backwards. The Meor V’Shemesh points this verse back towards the beginning of time, to the mystical moment of Creation. He explains that the first letters of the verse, Reeh Anochi Noten Lifnechem Hayom, add up to 288, which correspond to the 288 sparks Gd wove into creation, according to the Lurianic Kabbala, for humanity to recover and redeem. This, of course, is accomplished by living according to Gd’s word.

Is there a way to read this atemporal passage in a more timely fashion, where “today” might actually mean today? In order to do so, one must explain what is indeed being set before us “today” if it is not referring only to the Gerizim and Eval episode. The Sefat Emet is very specific in his reading of the emphasis on the word “today”. He explains, one might think that one is tied very strongly to the past. Sins I’ve committed in the past, accumulated karma, all these should hinder one’s capacity for total self transformation. Mistakes of the past must, one thinks, affect one’s ability to hear Gd’s voice in the present. Hence, this verse responds: Hear! (The Ohev Yisrael, with whom we will deal more fully later, insists that this first word in the verse is a command). Gd sets out the possibility of relationship today, despite the errors of yesterday. The voice can be fully heard and actualized because Gd provides this opportunity anew at every moment. Differing from Benjamin’s Angelus Novus, we are not blown into the future against our will, face contorted and towards the past, rather, as Benjamin would have put it, the Sefat Emet “establishes a conception of the present as the ‘time of the now’ which is shot through with chips of Messianic time”.

The reading which shoots the now most utterly with Messianic time and whose reading most interestingly also predates another Frankfurt School thinker in this context, is that of the Or Penei Moshe (to my mind one of the most original and radical Hasidic thinkers. I don’t know why his work is not more widely circulated). His reading stresses this pivotal “today” repeated twice in our passage. This “today” is doubly articulated as is the double articulation in Gd’s voice- blessing and curse.

Before proceeding with his reading, I’d like to sidetrack a bit and talk about Ernst Bloch, who most articulates this double articulation within critical theory, to the point that he refers to criticism as being “Janus faced”. Bloch differed from the other Frankfurt School theoreticians in that he felt that the Marxist derived social criticism of others like Adorno, always finding hegemony, reification, and exploitation, only represented half the story, a “half-enlightenment”. A proper critical approach to society would also recognize the other side, the positive ideology reflected in culture, the strivings toward a better world as represented in dreams, literature, art, even advertising and marketing. By recognizing what humanity conceives of as the “better life”, one is already a step closer to the positive “real-objective possibility” which could be actualized in such a society. Thus, Bloch is grouped along with Benjamin in the category of “messianic Marxists”, as opposed to the hammer wielding “litvaks” like Althusser and Adorno. Relevant to our discussion of “today” is this summation statement in The Principle of Hope:

Possibility no longer resides in a ready-made ontology of being as that-which-has-been-up-to-now, but in an ontology which is to be forever refounded on the being-of-that-which-is-not-yet, an ontology which discovers the future even in the past in the totality of nature…The category of real possibility is the category of that space which opens up before the movement of matter as a dialectical process: it is the specific property of that dimension of reality which is situated in front of its unfolding.

The Or Penei Moshe, speculating on what was given “today” if the verse is not referring to the Gerizim episode later to occur, suggests that an approach to life and Gd is given in this verse. The technique is to live the day as though that were the only day given to live. This, he explains, in itself, contains the double articulation of blessing and curse. The righteous, who would in such a frame of mind, not be distracted by any other matter than achieving the upmost in human perfection, would thus, by result of this mind experiment, succeed in actualizing and perfecting themselves and the world. The wicked, who would be thrown into a nihilistic state of defeat because of fear combined with the finality of attainment of pleasure (Similarity to Nietzche’s mind experiment regarding the eternal return is interesting in many regards).

What spoke to me in the OPM’s reading was the use of “hayom”, “today”, as the pivot and double facet. His defence of how one thought experiment could lead to two radically different outcomes is built on the possibilities in the word “today”. He cites BT Nedarim 8:, in which at the end of days Gd “unsheathes” the sun; the consequent light acts as a salve to the righteous and a punishment to the wicked at the same time. The transformative power of “today” is also supported by BT Sanhedrin 98., where the Mashiach is to come “today” if only we would hearken unto Gd’s word. Once again, we have the blinding power of the Good as symbolized by the light. Perhaps “hayom”, “today”, carries within it the aspect of day, as suggested by the OPM, in a more than connotative manner. Every day lived completely contains within it the possibility of utter world transformation, a totally new world, as seen by the linkage to these two Talmudic sources. Here is a remarkable parallel in Bloch (cited by Kellner):

The unconscious of psychoanalysis is therefore, as we can see, never a Not-Yet-Conscious, an element of progressions, it consists rather of regressions. Accordingly, even the process of making this unconscious conscious only clarifies What-Has-Been; i.e., there is nothing new in the Freudian unconscious. This became even clearer when C.G. Jung, the psychoanalytic fascist reduced the libido and its unconscious contents entirely to the primeval. According to him, exclusively phylogenetic primeval memories or primeval fantasies exist in the unconscious, falsely designated ‘archetypes’; and all wishful images also go back into this night (italics mine), only suggest prehistory. Jung even considers the night to be so colorful that consciousness pales beside it; as a spurner of light, he devalues consciousness…

Thus, to the analysts, the unconscious is all in the past, there is no progress or development possible there. In the OPM, however, correct hearing “today’, brings us into the light of the new day, into a now moment, a moment lived intensely; a world capable of transforming now- this is possible to those who would hear, those who would stand in the light of Gd’s commandments. The Ohev Yisrael’s reading fits in nicely here- he explains that the initial term “Re’eh”, “See” or “Look”, is a command, the command to devekut, to communion, for where one looks, that is where one “is”. If one achieves this, then at that moment one achieves the state of “anochi” (the next word in the verse), which is usually translated as “I”, but he choosed to read the gematria, which equals the numerical value of “kiseh”, which means “chair.” So the verse would read, “See where you are at in relation to the Divine experience.” As a result of one’s relationship with Gd, one becomes the “seat” of divine outflow. This double articulation, this being linked both to the place you are at as well as being at the same time linked to the greatest of positive potentialities, can go in either direction; one’s being in the world can bring about positive or negative change, as we’ve seen. Bloch, in his essay “Formative Education, Engineering Form, Ornament”, explains how people and their environment are interrelated; the man makes the world, and the world makes the man. As his example, he explains:

…The very way in which a chair causes us to sit has- at least at times- an effect on our general posture… for example, the more approachable and gregarious personality is expressed in the abundance of seats offered in his rooms…

In summation, we see that every day presents a new opportunity for recreating the world in a more perfected state. Sometimes, one can transcend even the errors of the past and reach towards the light, towards a new and better world, and this can be achieved by realizing that the situation must change at this very moment, no more human suffering can be tolerated for another day, for the alternative to this state of blessing is a woefully accursed state. If this is not clear from a theoretical perspective, then read the daily news from the Middle East.

Ekev I: Towards a Feminist Theology within Judaism

Devarim 8:9- “a land whose stones are iron and from whose hills are quarried copper”.

The Avodat Yisrael points us to a reading of this verse by the Targum Yonatan, an early Aramaic translation/Midrash (parts of which are quite ancient, others as late as the seventh or eighth century) in which this verse is read as “a land whose sages proclaim decrees as forceful as steel and whose wise men ask questions as solid as copper”. He then points us to a verse from Isaiah 49:18 referring to being dressed like a bride in ornaments and jewelry, which is read by the Alshich as also referring to the arguments of the sages. The AY goes on to explain that while arguments per se might be perceived as a negative phenomenon, in the end they will all coexist as part of a more complex structure, serving as the “ornaments of the bride”. He argues that the differing positions in Talmudic disputes reflect the limited nature of the individual soul operating within its own perspective; but in the future we will see how all the different positions taken on spiritual matters will all be part of one totality, like a work of art, like ornaments of a bride, which work not as individual objects but as part of an array, of a full image. (This position, of looking at disagreement within spiritual sources as itself constituting an “ornament” arouses within me a temptation to turn again to architectural theory and Adolf Loos, but this week I’m after a more foundational idea, so to speak).

The AY continues with this analogy in order to explain our verse. He explains that the word avanim, stones, described in our verse is also used in the Sefer Yetzirah to refer to the letters of the alephbet, and thus explains that these stones are composed of barzel, literally steel, but here can be read creatively as an acronym, the letters standing for Bilhah Rachel Zilpah Leah, the wives of Jacob. The link is that they too seemed to have arguments, but in the longer view their whole goal, together with Jacob, was to bring about the twelve tribes, that is, the ‘foundational moment’ which would in the long run create the world of scholars and wise men whose ‘ornamental disagreements’ are favorably mentioned in the Targum Yonatan. Here then, is a reading inclusive of the Matriarchs in the “soil” (almost literally) of the Jewish project.

Dr. Tamar Ross has pointed out that while many of the Halachic hurdles that prevent full participation by Jewish women in Jewish life can be overcome by proper analysis of the Halachic texts, there is still not yet an adequate theology of the specifically feminine in Judaism to provide meaning to the contemporary observant woman. For many years (even back in Seattle and Juneau, Alaska), I have been attempting to conceptualize just such a theology, without recourse to an essentialist argument, or one that derives from male defined gender roles. The failure of with many approaches derived from essentialist positions is that gender definitions themselves tend to be the product of an exclusionary bias. For example, Genevieve Lloyd in her study of the concept of “reason” so important in Western civilization- “femininity itself has been partly constituted through such processes of exclusion” (Lloyd, The Man of Reason: ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in Western Philosophy). The following quote could easily be applied to the Jewish world as well: “Feminists have argued that these concepts of reason and knowledge, as well as those of man, history, and power, are reflections of gendered practices passing as universal ones” (Alcoff, Feminist Theory and Social Science). In the drive to rectify this situation in the Jewish world, new “myths” and stories are created, and new prayers written, with varying degrees of success. Is it possible that the most radical and progressive approach is found in texts already canonical? Follow this reading:

This past week we celebrated Tu B’av, the fifteenth of Av, that enigmatic holiday of which the Mishna at the end of Taanit tells us:

“there were no better days for Israel than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur; for on these days the women of Jerusalem would go out and dance among the vineyards…”

The Talmud asks “It is understandable what the celebration is on Yom Kippur, as it is the day of atonement, but why the dance on Tu B’av? One answer presented by the Talmud is that Tu B’Av was the day upon which the generation of the Exodus, the Dor Hamidbar, had their sentence commuted. Rashi explains: Throughout all of the forty years of the desert sojourn, on the night of the ninth of Av, (as a result of the sin of the spies, which condemned all those age twenty and over to die in the desert rather than enter the land), a call went out announcing that all the men must go out and dig graves (lest they die that night prior to digging the grave), and spend the night sleeping in them. The next morning there was a call stating “those alive now separate from the dead” and all those who were still alive got up out of their graves and carried on until the next Ninth of Av. Every year this was repeated, until the fortieth year, when in the morning, the call went out, and every single man was still alive. Figuring they had erred in discerning the correct day of the month, the Israelites continued to sleep in the graves every night until the fifteenth, when the moon filled out (menaing that the midpoint of the month had astronomically passed) and it was clear that the men had been pardoned.

So who survives the sojourn in the desert and enters into the land? According to the midrashim, we know of Calev, Yehoshua, now we know of this fortieth year cohort of male survivors- and all the women. The Midrash tells us that none of the women who left Egypt died in the desert, because of their demonstrated love for the land, in other words, the women were not demoralized by the report of the spies as were the men, and hence were ready to keep moving toward the land on the basis of faith. For this reason, explains the Sefat Emet (in the likkutim), the women dance on Tu B’av- because the women were right- had the men listened to the women, this forty year anguish and the death decree for all the men would never have occurred. Furthermore, the Sefat Emet continues, what reason could possibly justify that on Yom Kippur, the most sacred day of the year, when in the temple the most awesome sacrificial rite transpired, the women would dress up and go out to dance (imagine this in today’s religious climate)? The explanation is the same: Among other things, Yom Kippur also commemorates the day on which the second set of Luchot were given, the second attempt at giving the Ten Commandments. This implies that Yom Kippur is thus the day of forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf.

In their analysis of the golden calf debacle, the midrashim teach us that it was the men who were the enthusiasts; the women refused to participate (the midrashim, for example, read that the men tore the nose rings out of their unwilling wives’ noses in order to contribute to the production of the calf). This explains, adds the Sefat Emet, that strange epilogue to the Talmudic portrayal of the Tu B’av dance, where the fourth group of women, those without money, family, or beauty, say to prospective grooms “marry us for the sake of doing a mitzvah” but then add- “as long as you crown us with gold”, meaning that the men must recall that the women did not sin with gold, in the sin involving gold, the golden calf.

In summary, the Sefat Emet explains that the women dance on Tu B’Av and Yom Kippur because on those two days the women were right while the men had been terribly wrong. In order to recognize just how dramatic all this is, we must keep in mind the changes that were brought about as a result of these errors. For example, the Sefat Emet points out (ekev, trn’a) that were it not for the sin of the calf, the Israelites would have reached tikkun, entered the land with Moshe, and never been driven from the land. The Talmud in Nedarim tells us that had Moshe entered the land, there would have been no need for the Oral law, only the Torah and the Book of Joshua. In Tikkunei Zohar 21 we are told that the sins of the Dor Hamidbar cause the Torah to become difficult, to be understood “tipin tipin”, drop by drop. R. Zadok in several places (see the other shiur on Ekev) argues that were it not for the sin of the golden calf, the entire book of Vayikra, as well as all of the Oral Law would not have been given, being superfluous! So we see that so much of what difficult and argumentative in the Jewish tradition is a direct result of the errors of Man at the formative time of the Exodus, and that had the women prevailed, we would be heirs to a very different history and tradition.

I will suggest that there is a message relayed by the term used for the women’s dance, “cholot”, from the word “machol”, which means specifically refers to dancing in a circle. This is the term used to describe the the dance the righteous will perform around Gd, as it were, at the End of Time (cf. Michael Fishbane’s article regarding dance in the Breslov tradition). The reading of this in Likutei Moharan is that the circle imagery is specifically used to point to a mathematical equality among all the participants, as the radius of a circle from any point at the circumference is the same. Everyone in the circle is equidistant to Gd. This Torah of the Messianic time is what the women allude to in their dance, the dance of those not tinged by the sins of the golden calf and the spies, the dance of Gd’s original intention for the world now postponed but ever ready for realization.

This then, suggests a theology of unity and equality in relationship to Gd, one in which perhaps the current gender regulations would become irrelevant, one in which the difficulties inherent in the normative practice would become sublated to a more direct relationship with Gd. It is interesting that so much of the Sabbath literature uses wedding imagery; perhaps we have some taste of this once and future Torah, this “feminine Torah” every Shabbat…

Perashat Ekev II: Salvation Underfoot

Devarim 7:12 “V”haya ekev tishma”un- And it shall come to pass, if you keep my statutes to observe them, then Gd will uphold the covenant as promised to your forefathers”

There is an odd word inserted in this verse, which catches the idea of all commentators. Instead of merely stating, “And if you observe”, the strange word “ekev” is inserted. It is usually translated as per the Aramaic translation, also followed by Ramban, as “because of”, “as a result of”, derived from the concept of ekev as the end of something, here the “end result”, as in means to an end, as explained in Saadia and Ibn Ezra. However, there is a remarkable reading in Rashi, which uses a different derivation for the word ekev:

“if you observe the minor commandments which tend to be ‘trod upon as with the heel (ekev)”, (that is, ignored) then Gd will keep his promises”.

This combination of etymologies, that of “heel” and that of “end”, was stretched to various extremes in the Hassidic commentators. The “end”, for example, was taken to mean the eschatological end of days, the time when suffering and “history” ends, the time of the arrival of the Messiah, which in Aramaic is referred to as “ikvita (containing the root “ekev”) d”moshicha”. The Or Hameir, for example, provides a lengthy discourse about how it appears that we have several senses, sight, smell, etc, but underlying them all (the same conclusion Husserl arrives at) is a sense which unifies all the individual sense datum, and, well, makes sense of them. Thus, there are times when, at very high spiritual moments, such as Sinai, the people could “see the sounds”. This unity of sensorium will transpire at the end of time, and thus we will, when in total communion with the divine, experience the spiritual efflux of our actions as we do sensations.

The Or Penei Moshe adds that this is the reason why the specific content identified as what we shall hear are the “mishpatim”. Mishpatim are “legal statutes”, that is, the type of laws which make legal and social sense, the “rational” commandments (as opposed to “chukim” which are devotional or disciplinary laws, laws we don’t intuitively understand). However, what we consider rational in our current level of understanding is very limited; at the “end of days”, when we transcend the current limited level of spiritual understanding, we will have the experience in which ideas we thought we understood, we will “hear” in a radically different, expanded way.

On the other hand, the etymology of “ekev” as pertaining to “heel” also leads to interesting readings. The Chozeh of Lublin, following the lead of the Noam Elimelech, understands the term “heel” as suggesting a practice of extreme humility, of self abnegation: If you make yourself like one who is trodden upon while observing the commandments, then you will “hear”, that is, understand the reason for the commandments. The Sefat Emet reads the heel metaphor as suggesting yet another practice: one in which one must follow through all action until its is properly completion. The Or Hameir, as we saw before, reads ekev as referring to the end of days, but offers another reading which borrows the “heel” etymology to suggest that our loftiest spiritual attainment in our current existence is but the “heel”, the lowest level of the actual spiritual energy as it will be actualized at the End of Days, when our consciousnesses will be sublated into much greater spiritual presence.

A reading which builds upon the above readings, using both the “end” and the “heel” etymology for ekev, which seems to resonate with the contemporary situation of much of humanity is that of the Esh Kodesh. The Esh Kodesh, writing in the Warsaw Ghetto, reads Rashi closely: How could Rashi suggest that anyone “stomps” upon a mitzvah, regardless how insignificant it appear to be in comparison with other commandments, and furthermore, why with their heel, a rather strong term of derision? Rather, his poignant reading of the verse and Rashi’s comment is as follows: When it comes to pass that the people who keep the mitzvoth are smashed and downtrodden as with a jackboot, despair, hold on to what can be salvaged, and perhaps as a result of your outcry, Gd will remember the covenant,  and have mercy on the world. Thus, the verse reads: in the end, you will tishma’un, you will understand the meaning of all the mishpatim, mishpatim being translated here not as commandments but as trials and suffering- a meaning will be derived for all the travails you have been through- even if the meaning of all this suffering is inexplicable at the present.

In other words, it is the outcry in response to injustice that is mandatory in order to bring blessing to the world.

At the beginning of this week’s perasha, we are told by Moshe of his furtive attempts to persuade Gd to let him enter the land of Canaan. “And I besought the Lord in that time saying’. Virtually every word in this verse is in need of explication. What is interesting is that each explication is used by the Midrash to teach a lesson regarding prayer. For example, the unusual first term, Va’ethanan, which contains the root ch n n, is linked to the similar word chinam, gratis. Thus, the lesson derived by the Sifri, quoted by Rashi, teaches “it is in the language of a free gift, for while the righteous could fall back on their good deeds, they ask that Gd grant them their request as a free gift…”. The idea is that true prayer is not a negotiation with Gd, in which one reminds Gd of one’s merits and requests fulfillment as a tit-for tat, rather, one asks from Gd as though one had no merits at all. Why this should be the case is an interesting question; the Tiferet Shelomo who points out that negotiating with Gd on the basis of merit is a dangerous exercise, for there is no person without sin; the risk is that invoking merit may also resurrect the old skeleton in the closet. The Kotzker goes even further – he states that no righteous person falls back on their merits because no truly righteous person actually would think of themselves as possessing merit; the merit they might be willing to fall back upon is their acceptance upon themselves of striving for merit in the future, but even this in their own eyes is deficient. I cite these approaches dealing with the risk of evoking one’s own sins is not because I have a strong belief in a judgemental punitive nit-picking Gd, but because this is in sync with the Hasidic approach that the human condition is a tragic one which no one, not even the greatest spiritual hero, is capable of transcending, and this coloring of the concept of prayer is crucial for our perasha.

For after all, this perasha is an odd place to learn about the value of prayer, as it is a failed prayer. After all, Moshe asks rather persistently to enter the land (the mystics say that Moshe prayed 515 different prayers, “taktu tefillot”, corresponding to the numerical value of the term “va’ethanan”), and yet, Gd says “no”. If anything, one would think that this perasha was an instructive admonition in how not to pray…

I’d like to suggest that perhaps the failure is the message. Prayer is about something other than getting one’s wish fulfilled. Prayer is a vehicle for personal transformation, and almost requires a recognition of the inability to get all that one wants all the time. Prayer may reflect a failure right at the outset- one may not even be able to pray. R. Nachman of Breslov in Likutei Moharan 99, reads this lesson from our verse: Va’ethanan el Hashem- Pray to Gd even when you are not in a “connected” state, even when you know that your attempt at prayer will be a failure, so that “be’et hahi”, when you do reach the appropriate spiritual level of devekut, of cleaving unto Gd, then “laymor”, then your prayers will themselves speak, so to speak, they themselves will “laymor” and elevate all the previous, failed prayers, along with them.

To R. Zadok Hacohen and the Sefat Emet the human situation of inadequacy, with redemption and growth coming through prayer, is at the core of this entire perasha. R. Zadok points out that the segue into the next few verses is puzzling. Moshe begins by narrating his failure in swaying Gd to allow him to enter the land, and then, in 4:1, proceeds: And now, Israel, hearken unto the statutes and laws that I will teach you so that you live and inherit the land, etc. How can Moshe, who failed to gain entry to the land, be setting down the way to live life in the new land? And why is this connected textually to his failure at prayer?

According to R. Zadok, Moshe understood why he failed in his prayer, and why he could not enter the land. He understood the “flaw” was with himself- he was too great a man. A man (and a generation, one could add- the Ohr HaChayim points out that Moshe’s failure here was true for the entire Dor Hamidbar, the generation he led through the desert, which had witnessed Sinail) who had achieved this great a level, who was so distant from sin and temptation, was not the person who could teach the most important lesson for the new Jewish society about to unfold, the lesson of Teshuva, repentance. He brings various prooftexts, from the BT Rosh Hashana, for example, to make this point, but even a common sense reflection makes this argument compelling. Essentially, there are people who are not allowed to make mistakes. The lesson of teshuva is that all humans are fallible, and yet the individual and society can overcome mistakes. However, there are classes of people from whom this lesson is invalid, and from whom apologies would not be repugnant. For example, no one would allow a physician the leeway for error that might lead to a patient’s death, and “repenting” for it would be an absurdity. This would hold true for leaders in whom one appoints to ensure the protection of a society. “Oops, I’m sorry, it was a mistake” is not an acceptable position for a leader whose country had been destroyed. Moshe who received Torah from Gd is not allowed to make critical mistakes of this sort and learn lessons from them. That is a not a privilege granted to individuals of that caliber. The Sefat Emet uses a somewhat different, but illustrative terminology here. He states that Moshe was the representative of Torah Shebichtav, the unchangeable Written Law, which needed to be fixed and protected in an inalterable fashion. A written text is not one that “grows” in itself, it must remain as it is in order that it may continue to instruct and provoke commentary. Society, however, life in the new land, which draws its strength from the Written Law; society is defined as Oral Law, the Torah Sheb’al Peh, the commentary on the fixed Written Law, a commentary which grows out of a community learning from its own existence and the problems that face it and how it encounters these problems. As the Sefat Emet says in other places, the role of the Oral Law is the perfection of human society from the perspective of Justice and equality. The prototype, as we’ve seen, is the case presented by the daughters of Zelophad, regarding a potential injustice and leading to its rectification, with divine acquiesence. This is the role of society in the new land, to bring about an ideal, just, humane society, continually striving for self perfection. This growth is not an option for Moshe and his Generation of the Desert.

In one of his letters, Kafka illustrates this uniqueness of Moshe and his Desert generation. In the letter of Jan 28, 1922, where Kafka agonizes over joining the Zionist movement, he refers to his situation as being “something like wandering the desert in reverse”. Living in the land might force him to become a settled member of society, as opposed to his current state of “wilderness- an organization according to which…there are elevations at lightning speeds, and also, of course, crushing moments that last thousands of years as if under the weight of the seas”. This state of “wilderness” is an appropriate description of the generation of Moshe. The heights of Sinai along with the cataclysmic fall of the Golden Calf. One must be special to reach such elevations and to fall in such crushing moments. A generation like that cannot create a new society tolerant of the normal human foibles; the range is too broad and the spectrum of responsibility beyond the capacity for ordinary human sensitivity. Thus, Moshe and his generation were not the ones to teach Teshuva or Torah Sheb’al peh, and thus, certainly, outside of the world of Tefilla. That is why Gd replies to their prayer, Rav Lach, you are beyond this. And this is why the very next passage is one in which Moshe says (4:1), you see that there is something that you will do, which I can’t do, because I am too tied to that desert, and that is- build up a normal healthy functioning society based on law and justice.

In Devarim Rabba 2:9, we are taught that Moshe could not enter the land because in death as well he needed to remain with his generation, so that at the end of days, he can march at their head and bring them into Israel. I would suggest that once a functioning just society is truly actualized, with the eradication of all social inequity and suffering, that is, the achievement of total tikkun olam, symbolized by the Mashiach and the end of history, then we will be ready to reintroduce the generation of desert, ready to accept their message in the most beneficial and constructive way. In the meantime, the approach to prayer is built upon recognition of Moshe’s failure. Prayer is not the coming of one superior person with great merits before Gd. The Yismach Yisrael riffs off the Midrash in Devarim Rabba 2:6, in which the plural phrase “laymor”, saying, is instructive of the appropriate route for prayer. Prayer, he explains, is effective when it is a cumulative reflection of a society coming before Gd. One prays recognizing that one is a human with social ties and responsibilities. One does not pray in the desert, one prays recognizing the human condition, as part of the people. This is why all our prayers are voiced in the plural. As an example, I would suggest glancing at the Viddui prayer, the “confessional” so central to the Yom Kippur service. The sins listed (ashamnu, bagadnu, etc) are all enumerated in the plural form, and even the most righteous person recites them all. Why? R. Haim Vital, in the Shaar Hakavanot, explains that even if one hasn’t violated one or the other specific sin, one is aware that one’s neighbor might have. In other words, as humans, we are aware of the potential of failure at the core of our existence, and thus pray that we, all of us together, can build a society based upon mutual positive growth.

Shabbat Nachamu- On Hope

Only for the sake of the hopeless ones have we been given hope.        (Walter Benjamin, Schriften I)

We frequently speak of hope. Hope seems one of the more lofty spiritual aspirations of mankind, yet one of the least frequently defined. Schiller seems to have summed it up for the Romantic era as “Im Herzen kuendet es laut sich an:/Zu was Besserm sind wir geboren!” (The heart proclaims it loudly within/We were born for better things!) What these better things might be is not detailed, apparently yearning was enough of a goal in the Romantic era. Whatever hope may be, it is earmarked for the future, perhaps only for future generations. Imber’s Hebrew poem, “The Hope”, now adapted for use as the Israeli national anthem, opens with a similar line: “As long as within the heart/A Jewish soul yearns…our Hope is not lost”. This hope is defined as (in the current official version) “To be a free nation in our land/The land of Zion-Jerusalem”.  While perhaps at the time this may have serced to define “The Hope”, there are few who would currently feel that these two lines expends that hope. Certainly we have not yet renounced the need for hope. So what is it that we hope for? Furthermore, must hope always be something aimed at the future? Is it possible that we can define hope in such a way that it reflects a process which can be actualized in the present, in the here and now?

In the Jewish tradition, the ultimate hope is clearly the Messianic hope. Is the Jewish hope for a Messiah a simple hope for a utopia in some mythological future? Is the hope that a Messiah will appear and transform the world into a happy place? I will attempt to demonstrate that a tradition exists, extending through the Hassidic masters on to Benjamin and Kafka, which places far more responsibility upon present generations, and makes hope a possibility for the present.

Isaiah 61:10 is one of the hopeful passages which refers to a utopian future: “Sos Asis B’Adon-oi- I will exult in the Lrd; my spirit will rejoice in my Gd, for he has dressed me in the garb of  redemption, in the cloak of justice (tzedaka) have I been draped…” This verse begins with a repeated term, Sos Asis, literally Exult I will exult. Repeated terms in the text almost always prompt a Midrashic exegesis, and here the Pesikta Rabbati offers a series of related readings, which deal with the hopes for the future-

1.                  sos- in the days of the Messiah, asis-in the fall of the Evil empire, rejoice-in the war of Gog and Magog. So far, these reflect the various eschatological biblical texts, with an emphasis on political redemption.

2.                  sos-saving all from the judgement of Gehinom (what we might call hell) asis- when the evil inclination is uprooted from our hearts, rejoice-when sins are forgiven. One might characterize this as an “internal” spiritual redemption.

3.                  sos- when the angel of death is terminated. Asis- in the messianic era rejoice- in the World to Come, which is endless. Perhaps this is meant to add an “external” spiritual redemption.

The Pesikta then continues with the verse, explaining the two garments specified in the verse- the first refers to that of salvation from oppression, and the second being that of Justice and charity. In short, we can see a coupling of the yearning for political change with that of spiritual transformation, with a bifurcation into political solutions and a call for justice and charity.

But what kind of justice do we require in the ideal situation?  This was a question that Walter Benjamin dealt with in his Theses. In Agamben’s phrase-

The Messiah is…the figure through which religion confronts the problem of the Law, decisively reckoning with it.

Will it be a state of exception, as the contemporary followers of Carl Schmitt might state, a state of being outside or beyond the law at the point of its fulfillment? Scholem, as well, felt that the mystics had an antinomian orientation whereby the utopian moment would reflect the dissolution of the law. Let us review then, a set of readings of another verse with a duplicated term, which appears in one of the signal texts dealing with Jewish law, Deuteronomy 16:20- Justice, Justice shall you seek after… Why is the word Justice repeated?

To some early Hasidic thinkers, such as the Avodat Yisrael, the repetition of the phrase signifies an “upper law” and a “lower law”; there is the “lower law”, that is, human law, which is meant to approximate, as much as is possible, the absolute, divine law, which in the ideal state. A variant of this is seen in the writings of the Hozeh of Lublin, who explains that proper application of law “below” prevents the need for divine application of the “supernal” law. On the other hand, there are more normative, this worldly readings in the early Hasidic masters, for example, according to the Kol Simcha (R. Simha Bunim of Pershischa), the repetition of the phrase is to warn against using law to subvert the law. If one is clever enough, one can marshal all sorts of texts to support a practice which is clearly wrong, and this kind of subversion is decried by the text.

The Sefat Emet, a later Hassidic thinker, attempts to synthesize these views in his yearly notes (His work is worthwhile working through, as he deliberates yearly over the same sets of texts and frequently opens up all sorts of possibilities). He initially cites the Kol Simcha quoted above, but rephrases him into a phrase worth citing given our current situation- (the duplication of the word Justice is to imply) that our pursuit of justice must proceed in justice. Not every means is justified for a valid outcome. Thus he globalizes the concern of the Kol Simcha, which was more local in terms of subverting law via law. However, over the course of several years, he swings toward a more spiritualized reading, with the difference from the early masters being that instead of dividing the two into an upper law and a lower law, he locates the upper law – within the heart of every individual. The phrase is repeated to encourage to seek deeply for the truth and justice within every person. Thus, we have a recognition, in summary, of truth above, truth below, truth within, and a truth without exception, in the here and now.

Returning to the Pesikta quoted earlier, the Pri Zaddik, a contemporary of the Sefat Emet, adds one element to the dichotomies read into the verse. He states that they can all be read as alternately referring to what is traditionally named “Messiah son of Joseph” versus “Messiah son of David”. From the earliest days of Jewish eschatology, the Messianic era was understood to be ushered in by two processes- one, brought about by Messiah son of Joseph, who was to fight the evil empires, and be victorious, but at the cost of his life. At that point, the Messiah, son of David would symbolize the utopian Messianic era, however that is understood.

Scholem understood Messiah son of Joseph as solely bringing about the end of history, without any sort of redemption. However, based on our sources, we may posit an alternative view. Kafka, in his musings about Messiah, wrote “The Messiah will only come when he is no longer necessary, he will only come after his arrival, he will not come on the last day, but on the very last day”.  Agamben suggests that Kafka may be understood if one considers the messianic event as being effected by a “bi-unitary figure”, “one of which is consumed in the consummation of history and the other of which happens, so to speak, only the day after his arrival”. As posited by the Pri Zaddik as well, this would suggest that all the dichotomies we have encountered represent two aspects of redemption, one in which the social sphere is transformed by a Messiah symbolized as mortal, and one spiritual which happens later. This reading is strengthened by the Lurianic understanding of redemption, in which the coming of the Messiah is a sign, an epiphenomenon of mankind’s having achieved a level of world-transformation, rather than the actual cause of this transformation. Perhaps we can equate Messiah son of Joseph with progressive social action for the betterment of all of humanity.

We can go a step further in this direction by introducing Walter Benjamin’s view of social action not only working towards the future, but redeeming the past as well. Benjamin, in his Theses on the Philosophy of History, argues that the approach to history ought be one of rescue, where the injustice perpetuated on the victims of history can be identified, learned from, and thus prevented in the present and future, thus serving as a kind of redemption of the past. The victims “have a retroactive force and will constantly call in question every victory, past and present, of the rulers”.  His approach to history

…wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger… the Messiah comes not only as the redeemer, he comes as the subduer of Antichrist. Only that historian will have the gift of fanning the spark of hope in the past who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins…

In other words, the goal of history, is meant  to rescue and redeem the hopes and dreams of those who were trampled by the victorious, those ruling classes who are also those who generally get to write the “standard” histories. By remembering and commemorating them, we are “endowed with a weak messianic power, a power to which the past has a claim”.

Redemption, as we are now defining it, is then constructed of hope- hope for a justly lived present, when attained would so alter our inner and outer worlds.  This level of transformation would act to redeem the hopes and aspirations even of those who suffered in the past. This is what is meant by the word “Tikkun”.

A protester holds a sign reading "In Solidarity with the South (Israel) & Gaza."

On Saturday evening, with rockets falling upon southern Israel and bombs falling on Gaza – with the innocent dying on both sides – approximately 10,000 social justice protesters convened in Tel Aviv for a silent march. The gathering, which intended to both recognize the violence occurring and to remind government officials that social justice reforms cannot be jettisoned with the security situation intensifying, was mostly silent at first, with thousands carrying signs and torches while marching to the sea.

However, not long into the march, an Arab-Jewish group (Hadash) began chanting, “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies.” The chant was picked up by a large contingent, but it was also met with heated rhetoric, particularly from a group Ami Kaufman in 972 Magazine described as “right-wing racists.” The situation was tense, particularly in the shadow of the tragedy that occurred that afternoon, in which a rocket fired from Gaza hit a home in Beer Sheva, killing one Israeli citizen and injuring many more.

A protest of foreclosures in San Francisco. Credit: Creative Commons/Steve Rhodes.

I recently sold my home. It was the first home to sell in my neighborhood in 6 months. Now my realtor tells me there are amazing deals on the market, homes that are selling for 200,000 or 300,000 less than they were a couple of years ago. She tells me that virtually all the houses on the market are foreclosures and that great deals are available.

It’s not quite as bad as she describes but the housing report for July shows that just over 26% of homes sold in the Bay Area were foreclosures and that nearly 20% of all the homes sold were underwater. It’s like a fire sale or a “going out of business” sale. And that’s the problem, each of these homes represents a family that has lost its home, the biggest investment they would likely make for their entire lives. Now it’s gone, poof. We could explore the “whodunit” and why but many others are already following that trail. I’m interested in the emotional and spiritual impact that this dislocation inflicts on our lives and families.

A few months ago I had the pleasure of “meeting” Chris Stedman on Twitter. He quickly became one of those non-believers with whom I enjoy discussing topics that tend to make everyone else a little crazy. It’s a rare and beautiful thing to find someone who you can disagree with heartily and still adore for his or her personality, intellect and ability to challenge you.

Chris recently announced that he’s working on a book based on his own transition from an Evangelical Christian to an openly gay atheist: (F)a(i)theist: How One Atheist Learned to Overcome the Religious-Secular Divide, and Why Atheists and the Religious Must Work Together (working title, Beacon Press 2012). I am honored to be able to share a short excerpt with you here:

“You coming to youth group tonight?” Her voice sounded distorted coming through the phone’s speaker.

“Maybe,” I said in a kind of drawl. “I might just stay home tonight and do my own Bible study.”

“But you’ve done that the last few weeks,” she said, groaning. I could picture her on the other end – decked out in her favorite Jesus fish t-shirt, four “WWJD?” bracelets on each wrist, and a Bible by her side – running her hands through her thin brown hair, closing her eyes tight and pinching her forehead. She sounded anxious. “Are you okay, Tiffer? I feel like I never see you anymore. We all miss you at church!”

“I’m great!” I replied, too quickly. “Of course, I’m just fine!” I said, scrambling to reassure her, practically yelling.

“Well, we’re going to be talking about what makes a Christly man this week,” she said, “so I just thought you’d be interested.”

I was, of course, but it was too late for me. I knew what being a Christly man meant, and I wasn’t it. Instead of answering, I reached under my bed and pulled out a collection of childhood artifacts that my mom had assembled for me, retrieving a worksheet I’d filled out in first grade. When I grow up, it said in a passable attempt at cursive, I want to be: A dad. Because: I want a family.

When I was a little girl, my mother made me return my school-issued raffle tickets to my third-grade teacher and tell her my parents don’t believe in gambling. It was a hard thing to do at the time, but I believe it built character. It also left me with a deep-seated opposition to legalized gambling. While I am not as absolutist about it as my mother, I just do not believe that it is right to look to gambling as a way to solve our social problems, whether it is school funding or a lack of jobs.

Rarely does more than a week or so go by before something arrives in my inbox from Len and Libby Traubman, a couple that has helped lead a Palestinian/Jewish living room dialogue for two decades. And, opening that message always gives me a boost of hope for the world, even in the midst of bad news. Today was no different. They shared links to videos from an organization called Peace it Together. Check out this video and then, read more to learn about what happens when a Palestinian, an Israeli, and a Canadian spend part of their Summer vacation together, peace-building through film-making.

Attribution: Zephyris at en.wikipedia

When it is winter in Chicago – as it will be again after the long and perfect fall is finally over and gone – I know that I will crave that best of all Chicago winter moments:  when I pull back the heavy doors of the Garfield Park Conservatory’s main entrance, pay my donation, give my zip code to the desk clerk for her records, and open the interior doors that lead into the soaring space of the Palm House.

There, in a hot and sultry instant, my dried-out lungs fill with green, delicious green, and some part of my hibernating spirit picks up again where it left off, in a conversation with plants.

I will need that place.  I will be sitting in my radiator-heated apartment, I will be looking at my pretend, eco-friendly fire, I will be eating too much in the way of baked goods, and I will need to walk in the half-sunlight of a mid-winter, mid-western day, where the reflected light from the palm trees coats the sallow of my skin.  I will need to feel lit – not full of the vitamin D of a real summer sky, not able to pick fruit off the trees as if it were really the tropics, but soothed in some unaccountable way, and made better.

I am not wealthy, and so, finding the time and money and the costly leisure to make a trip out of the city during the winter as friends of mine do is not within my reach.

You have to leave town in February, they say, how else can you make it through?

How I can make it through is by going to Garfield Park.  I go to the greenhouse, I go to the green.

When my son was small we spent every Monday morning in the indoor children’s garden there, where they would program story hour, craft projects and unstructured time to dig in the dirt for babies and toddlers, in a space so warm we’d strip three layers by the time the staff educator packed up the trowels and went back to other duties.  Then we’d go and try to find hiding axolotls in the pond, or discuss the predilection towards prickly pear cactus of the gruff javelina while standing in the Cactus Room, baking in dry heat, listening to the pebbles under other feet.

But this year, we will not have that that winter feeling.  Not in the same way, not for a long time.

This year, much of the glass in the Conservatory was destroyed in a summer hail storm, in a summer of extreme storms here in the Midwest, and no one is sure when the public will again walk into the glory of the Fern Room, or the Cactus Room or the Show House.

Nina (not her real name) was beside herself with anguish. For months she was convinced that Simon’s (another fictitious name) relationship with his ex-girlfriend still had unfinished business. He acknowledged it, and they talked about it again and again, without any relief in sight. He was responding defensively instead of being able to hear her pain, and they spiraled, repeatedly, to the verge of a breakup neither of them wanted.

When Nina asked for my support in how to navigate this situation, I invited her to take full responsibility for her reactions as an opportunity to grow and stretch in an area of pain. This doesn’t mean she won’t have pain. It only means that when the pain arises she can choose to own it and be with it rather than attempt to manage it by asking Simon to be or do something different.

This is a deep practice, and one that I imagine can be very liberating for Nina. It’s about pulling back, again and again, from blaming and judging and trying to make things different from what they are. It’s about cultivating acceptance of life, Simon, and herself, and stretching and stretching to embrace at one and the same time the reality of love and care between the two of them alongside the radical uncertainty of the future.

On a frigid evening in February, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama stood before a gathering of the Wisconsin Democratic Party and gave what, at the time, was an iconic and momentous address.

Responding to Hillary Clinton’s critique that Obama’s candidacy was principally built upon pretty speeches that lacked substantive policy commitments, Obama offered this:

Don’t tell me words don’t matter. “I have a dream” — just words? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” — just words? “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” — just words? Just speeches?

It was an address in which Obama forcefully championed several policies that have since been abandoned or put on hold, an address in which he went on to say, “I know good intentions are not enough when not fortified with political will.” As a progressive Democrat, it is a speech I now find mildly difficult to watch.

President Obama delivers a speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009. Photo from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

But my mild disappointment is nothing when one considers the speech that Palestinians would find difficult to watch, though few today would likely admit to having actually watched it, much less have been moved by it. I am referring to the moment when, in 2009, Obama symbolically stood before the Middle East in Cairo and said, regarding the Palestinians:

For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

I invite someone to create the following video and post it on YouTube.

A class of school children with their hands over their hearts reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag,”

A group of politicians dressed in business suits with campaign sings in the background, wearing buttons that say vote for me:

“I pledge allegiance to the pledge,”

The Disciples Eat Wheat on the Sabbath (painting by James Tissot)

Mark 2:23-28: One Sabbath he was going through the cornfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?’ And he said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath.”

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty made news recently by saying that gay marriage devalues traditional marriage. This is, of course, far from a new argument against legalizing same-sex marriage, but it has always struck me as a curious one. Proponents of this argument can never say clearly and coherently how exactly people in opposite-sex marriages are harmed by same-sex marriage – only that marriage itself is somehow devalued, tainted, or offended. And let’s face it: marriage doesn’t care what happens to it. Marriage is not a person or a being; it is an institution. Institutions don’t get their hearts broken. They don’t sing with joy. They are not treated humanely or violently. They don’t protest for their rights. They are, simply, social practices writ large.

My cousin Marcia wrote to me the other day. I’ve been one of her anchors of hope amidst a lot of despair about the world situation. When she wrote this time though, I too was cranky. “Change we can believe in my tush!” Then, a few hours later, our shop was filled with Think Peace Workshop kids and their parents making scarves for children in Africa. The energy was simply amazing. And then this morning I was writing checks to some of the organizations we support and ran across this video from the Mosaic Project. Now, I don’t feel so cranky. Maybe this will lift your spirits too. There are amazing people and organizations working with children to make their world and ours a much better place. Read more if you’d like to know more about The Mosaic Project and Think Peace Workshop. And, if this kind of post makes you happy, let me know and I’ll tell you about other people and organizations doing wonderful things. If you’d rather just be cranky….. I’ll understand!

The Christian Right is already starting its Get Out the Vote Campaign, and the Religious Left should be doing the same.

The right-wing Faith and Freedom Coalition (FFC) is calling on conservative churches to get people registered to vote:

Are you sure all your friends, family members and fellow church attendees are actually registered to vote? You can fix that.

Sadly, about half of U.S. churchgoers still aren’t registered to vote. That means millions of conservative people of faith and Tea Party friendly voters are forfeiting their voice at election time. In order to restore America’s greatness and founding principles, we must have every member of our grassroots team on the playing field and ready to make an impact in 2012. The time to start organizing our team for game day 2012 is now with a voter registration drive.

By hosting a voter registration drive, you can help your fellow citizens make their voices heard in elections that determine whether our country honors the sanctity of life and marriage, confirms judges who won’t legislate from the bench as judicial activists, reigns in out-of-control spending which burdens future generations and stands up for our ally Israel.

On Wednesday in Holon – a city situated just south of Tel Aviv – municipality inspectors arrived at a protest tent encampment in the Jesse Cohen neighborhood. There, they informed protesters that a demolition order had been issued, and that residents had 24 hours to break down the camp and vacate the premises.

The response? Enraged, many protesters refused the order, with some taking out their intense frustration by burning tires and furniture in the street and blocking traffic.

Protesters burn tires in Holon. Photo by Moti Milrod for Haaretz.

See, many of the protesters in Holon’s tent city are homeless, a fact that no doubt contributed to their anger. (Some threatened to simply sleep in front of police headquarters if the camp was destroyed, having nowhere else to go.) The episode is disturbing enough when viewed on ethical grounds alone. Consider: the authorities engaged some of Holon’s homeless, who are protesting specifically for (among other things) affordable housing, by evicting them from their tents.

Demolishing tent encampments set up by some of Israel’s weakest, most vulnerable citizens should be condemned on humanitarian grounds. When homeless protesters band together and add their voices to the cacophony of calls demanding that the government care for them as they have the multinational corporations holding much of Israel’s wealth, such protesters must be afforded the freedom to gather. They must also be afforded the same dignity being given to those currently crowding the enormous tent city along Rothschild Boulevard’s swank strip.

Biblical wisdom teaches: “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on the one who starts it rolling.”

Prognostications regarding the 2012 elections that predict President Obama will be a one-term president are very wide of the mark. Those who say that he is not a good leader are also mistaken. The error comes because many people, especially the Republicans, have misread the results of the 2010 elections, and many of the president’s supporters, especially among the punditocracy, do not understand the spiritual value of cool.

During and after the debate around health-care reform, Republicans mischaracterized the reform to make it seem as if there would be cuts in Medicare that would compromise patient care. There was talk of death panels. The cost saving measures in Medicare intended to cover some of the costs of health care for others were difficult to understand. Moreover, Democrats did not do a good job explaining and defending the Affordable Care Act during the campaign. They did not speak enough about the provision for preventive care for seniors. I say again: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Medicare was the pit Republicans dug to win in 2010, and it will be the pit they fall into in 2012.