Humility

“Before Honour there is Humility.” – Proverbs 15:33

Humility, in my opinion, is one of the lessons of Parashat “Miketz.”

The story begins with Yosef’s childhood.

As it unfolds, we learn that, unlike his brothers, Yosef has been blessed with sublime foresight, wisdom and abilities. Unfortunately for him, since he was not the oldest, he had little, if any, say in everyday life or important matters that pertained to him as well. Imagine how frustrating it must have been for him having to follow the advice and directives of those who did not share his level of acuity. His older brothers must have felt it as well.

To add insult to injury, Yosef was also Ya’akov’s favourite son. The reason could be double fold. The first might be related to Yosef being his son from his beloved wife, Rachel. The second, he must have recognized Yosef’s talents from early on and thus preferred him over the others. Or was it perhaps because “he had been born to him in his old age,” as Bre’sheet 37 :3 tells us? Whatever the reason, Ya’akov never made his preferential attitude towards Yosef a secret much to the disdain of his older children. As a token of his love for Yosef, Ya’akov made an “ornate striped robe” for him.

That gesture by Ya’akov, naturally, was resented by his other sons. It developed into great, unbearable hatred which, as the story in Bresheet tells us, ignited in the brothers a burning desire to hurt Yosef and wish to dispose of him.

There is a question that is begging to be asked here. Why would an “ornate striped robe,” propagate such a deep-seated hatred towards Yosef?

Rachel Sivilia undertook the task of finding out. In her article entitled, “Joseph’s ornate robe, brotherly jealousy just because of a robe?” (http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ktav_et/maamarim/sivilia6.pdf) Sivilia, states that she decided to research the clothing closet of that period according to their soc ial class . What prompted her to engage in it was a picture she saw of a wall painting in a tomb from ancient Egypt. It depicted a group portrait of a family or tribe who were on their way to Egypt to purchase wheat. What caught her attention was their garb. They were all wearing ornate striped robes of different fabrics and different colours.

According to Sivilia, different robes, their texture, their splashy hues were the marks of the social class of those who wore them. She, therefore, concludes that the robe given to Yosef was not only exceptional to the status of Yosef’s brothers but to that of Ya’akov as well. It classified him as nobility. He was their superior. It gave him the confirmation that he was above them.

It did not, however, stop at merely feeling superior. Yosef was not apprehensive about expressing his overflowing pride, arrogance and vanity through his dreams of dominance and preeminence.

It was evident that Yosef had not yet mastered the art of humility.

We can only imagine the frustration, jealousy and sense of revenge that brewed through his brothers like a burning fire. The eruption was imminent. As we know, they sold him to a convoy of Yishmaelites who took him to Egypt where he was sold as a slave to a man named Potifar.

The turning point Yosef’s life’s journey, the journey towards reaching maturity, adulthood, ridding himself of his vanity and above all reaching that point of rare integration between his exceptional talents and humility seems to have happened when Yosef was in prison. He was jailed following following the episode with Potifar’s wife who accused him of sexual harassment.

Even after all the hardships that he has endured, Yosef does not lose his faith in G-d. In prison, he ascends to a higher spiritual level when he realizes that his special gifts and abilities come from G-d. “The answers lie with G-d,” he tells Pharaoh’s wine steward and chef when they ask him to interpret their dreams. From the depth of his awareness of the source of his powers, sprouted his salvation.

“I cannot do it," Yosef, similarly, replied to Pharaoh, "but G-d will give Pharaoh the answer he desires" (Bresheet 41:16) is what Yosef answers Pharaoh when the latter asks him to explain  his dream. He has undoubtedly learned the importance of being modest and humble. Just then, when Yosef insists that his solution does not come from his ability but from G-d, just then Pharaoh finds him worthy of being freed from prison and serve as his right-hand man.

Is Yosef, perhaps, what Pharaoh was looking for, not just a talented man but a man of honour, a man who practices humility “one in whom is the spirit of God ?” (Genesis 41:38).

Shavua tov and Chodesh tov.

The real victory Jews celebrate on Channukah

It has always seemed to me that Chanuka does not receive the appreciation which it deserves. Dreidles, jelly donuts, jokes about calories, perhaps because we are dealing with one of the later holy days of the modern era.

But Chanukah is the genuine independence day. On Chanukah, the Jewish People was saved not from physical annihilation but from slow extinction and disappearance into the creases of history, as it happened to many other nations.

The most dangerous enemy on Chanukah were not the Greeks. With them history would have got along: they come, flex a muscle, gradually slide into fadeout and disappear like the rest of them. The big and serious problem was posed from the enemy within, the . Militarily, they were insignificant. They were merely the spoiled and sly protégés, but a shared diabolical interest was forged between them and the Seleucids regime.

The Hellenizers, the elite of they, not only wanted to adopt the Hellenistic lifestyle and in many cases 

also the pagan religious customs of the Greeks, but also wished to turn it into the prevalent norm.  The Greeks, of course, were eager to assist their allies to turn Judea into another Hellenistic entity among many. They issued forced conversion edicts, forbade circumcision and Shabbat observance, the heart of the Jewish faith. Had the revolt not erupted and the Hellenizers been successful in their plan, there would be no more Jewish People. It would have disappeared within no more than two or three generations.

Many a times, the question of what happened to the Romans arises, how could there remain not a 

single Roman out of such a powerful empire? The answer is that they did not disappear, they lost their identity in a long process which started before the physical liquidation of the capital of the Western Empire in 476 CE. Even this was, incidentally, carried out by allegedly "Roman" soldiers, that is, a barbaric army which was enlisted for money or lands. The agreement was not honoured, they burned the club and a minute later, there was not one Roman left, at least not on the Western side since no one of the Empire's residents cared whether they are called Romans of Hotentotes. They were a rabble, a mob of nations, tribes, languages and religions. One just changes the name of the sponsor printed on the shirt and moves forward.

Throughout history, even during genocides, the victim was never eradicated entirely. Nations disappeared because they assimilated among other populations and after a few generations there was no trace of them, they had no unique traits to distinguish them from others. That is precisely what the revolt of the Maccabees stopped and prevented.

The war had three stages:  the first, the rebellion was the most important one and the one we celebrate. During it, the Temple was rededicated. It ended with the defeat of Nikanor – religious autonomy was reinstated, the edicts cancelled and the goal achieved.

The second stage started when Judah, the Maccabee dismissed the corrupt high priest Alcimus who summoned his Seleucid patrons who sent an army of 20,000 soldiers headed by the warlord Bacchides against Juda's 800 men.  Judah was killed, the Greeks took partial control over the land. However, Judah's brothers restored the army on the eastern front of the Jordan river until a few years later, Bacchides was defeated by Yonatan and Shimon and left the land not before he unleashed his anger and carried out a small massacre over the Hellenizers as he saw them as responsible for his defeat. Bacchides, it is noteworthy to mention was pressured to fight Yonatan and Shimon by the hellenizers who wanted to do away with the rebels which, as we saw, was a bad idea. Hence Bacchides’s decision to massacre some of them. The Greeks maintained control over a few fortified cities, among them Jerusalem, even though Yonatan who situated himself in the nearby, Michma

The last stage was the most chaotic of them all since upon the onset of the internal struggles in the Seleucid kingdom, each side tried to pull the Hasmoneans to his side and ingratiated them with appointments, gifts and titles. Finally, Trifonas the traitor, the last Seleucid ruler who still tried to cling on to Judea, pretended to be a friend in order to slyly capture Yonatan and demand ransom money in exchange for him. Shimon paid, but Trifonas murdered Yonatan and tried to invade the country. Shimon's army came out against him and the Seleucid turned around and escaped.

This incident signifies the onset of the political independence of Judea. Two years later, Dimitris the II, who returned to his country, officially recognized the independence of the Jewish state under the ruling of Shimon. These two events are not mentioned in our history and even their precise date is not known as they are considered less significant

There are those who claim that the Hasmonean kings were “hellenizers” themselves, and as proof 

they cite the fact that they adopted a Greek way of life as well as their names – Alexander, Horkanus, Aristobelus etc. This is inaccurate. The difference between calling oneself Alexander and Hellenizers, in the sense of pre-revolt, is the same as between eating MacDonald’s and becoming a Christian.

Coins that are minted in our times carry an image of rays of plentitude, the same as those minted by Yochanan Horkanus. It is a pagan symbol which is more pagan than pagan. It originates from the 

story of the goat that nursed Zeus, the godhead in the Greek mythology. So what?

Neither Horkanus nor us are idol worshippers, but there are always natural influences on our lives, 

language and terminology from our surroundings – this is insignificant. The main problem on the eve of the rebellion was the attempt to outroot that Jewish faith in the wider sense, the popular kind, not  whether anyone wore a fashionable Grfeek dress or listened to Aris San.On Channukah we celebrate 

the main victory, the removal of the threat of cultural annihilation. 

Political Independence  was but a by-product much later because then, as today, the losers did not sit idly, but continued to apply pressure  and hoped to win "this time around," Each such effort merely created a chasin of events which brought about their final and absolute defeat and strengthened the Jewish state.

В последнее время Мири Регев вновь получила привычные порции уничижительной критики. На сей раз за то, что выступила в защиту Биньямина Нетаниягу. Как обычно, ее критики не удержались от соблазна внести немного расистских ноток вкупе со старинной легендой, якобы "Государство Израиль создано левыми".

Так ли это на самом деле? Большинство из нас, включая меня, многократно повторяли миф о первопроходцах-социалистах с русским акцентом и в рубашках с засученными рукавами, смело отбросившими древние иудейские традиции и проложившими путь в заброшенную Землю Израиля, с тем чтобы превратить пустыни и болота в цветущий сад.

Прежде чем изучить реальную, полную картину событий, давайте признаем, что роль левых сионистов в возрождении современного Израиля была велика.

Действительно, они основали кибуцы, мошавы (кооперативные фермерские хозяйства) и населенные пункты, устроенных по принципу «хома у-мигдаль» ("стена и башня"), четко установили свое присутствие на этой земле и создали еврейскую территориальную целостность как свершившийся факт.

Еще до провозглашения независимости Израиля левый сионизм создал основные структуры, послужившие основой становления государства в пути, вернул ивриту роль разговорного языка. Когда Элиэзер Бен-Йегуда оживлял и обновлял иврит, именно представители левых сионистских движений восприняли его проект всерьез и настояли на внедрении иврита в повседневную жизнь.

Левые сионисты последовательно проводили политику захвата, обработки и охраны земли. Они внедрили в сознание общества, что евреи должны сами возделывать землю на своей родине, а не пользоваться наемным трудом арабов. Левые были доминирующим фактором в создании еврейских вооруженных формирований «Хагана» и «Пальмах», которые со временем переросли в ЦАХАЛ. Короче говоря, вклад левого сионизма недооценивать нельзя.

Но - и это очень большое "но" – в своих славных свершениях левые были не одиноки! Одновременно с левыми сионистскими движениями, до и после них, были многие другие. Исторический грех левого сионизма заключается как раз-таки в том, что он решил полностью скрыть участие всех остальных, вместо того чтобы честно разделить с ними полагающиеся почет и уважение. Левые узурпировали нарратив создания и развития государства, диктуя грядущим поколениям, что им знать положено, а чего - нет.

В начальной школе мы с друзьями сочинили песню на иврите для утренника с такими словами: "Вначале были болота и необработанные поля, пока не пришли наши братья из движения БИЛУ, которые построили поселения и вынужденно воевали с арабами".  Именно это мы впитали на уроках. Ни один учитель, ни один родитель не подправил нас, не объяснил, что БИЛУ была лишь маленькой, далеко не самой значительной группой в первой волне алии. Эта группка насчитывала 60 человек, половина из которых вернулась в Россию, а оставшиеся здесь переругались друг с другом, как часто случалось в кругах идейных социалистов.

Когда началась первая алия? В 1882 году, как написано в израильском школьном учебнике истории? Неверно. Волны алии начались еще в 1881-м. Среди первых репатриантов были 2500 йеменских евреев. А лишь в 1882 году в Палестину (она же Эрец-Исраэль) прибыли первые 14 членов движения БИЛУ.  Большевистская система образования внедрила в наше сознание, что именно они стали предвестниками и символами первой большой волны репатриации. Такое утверждение значится и на сайте партии "Авода".

Вот еще один тщательно скрываемый факт: в 1880 году, до первой волны алии, в Эрец-Исраэль проживало 27 тысяч евреев – в большинстве своем сефарды. Им присвоили название «старый ишув». Они были потомками многих поколений евреев, постоянно живших на этой земле.

34 поселения были основаны репатриантами первой волны. Сколько из них было построено членами БИЛУ? Всего одно - Гедера! Да и это лишь благодаря участку земли, приобретенному для них раввином Йехиелем Пинесом – приверженцем религиозного сионизма.

В официальной учебной литературе нет ни единого намека на то, что большинство репатриантов первой волны и практически все евреи «старого ишува» были религизными людьми, соблюдали еврейские традиции. Зато везде упоминаются члены социалистического БИЛУ. Однако название этого движения представляет собой аббревиатуру на иврите - это начальные буквы фразы из ТАНАХа, из книги пророка Йешаягу: "Дом Якова, иди и пойдем". И уж тем более нигде не приводится полная цитата: "Дом Якова, иди и пойдем в свете Вс-вышнего". Социалисты ведь считают себя просвещенными людьми, зачем им упоминать религиозную "чепуху".

А многие ли слышали об истории евреев-выходцев из арабских стран?.. Дискриминационная политика системы школьного образования выставила левого светского ашкеназского еврея в центр всех событий сионизма, как нечто само собой разумеющееся. Остальных как будто не существовало, зачем вообще о них говорить, ведь государство якобы основали левые?!

Из чистого любопытства я решил выяснить, сколько городов в Израиле основано левыми сионистскими движениями.

Выход кварталов Иерусалима за стены старого города начался еще в середине XIX века, так что левых социалистов там еще быть не могло. Это были евреи разных общин, ашкеназы и сефарды. Главным им спонсором был Мозес (Моше) Хаим Монтефиоре  при поддержке фонда  американского еврейского филантропа Джуды (Йегуды) Туро. Оба они были выходцами из сефардских общин, не имевшими никакой связи с социализмом.

Квартал Ахузат-Баит, за год превратившийся в город Тель-Авив, основали в 1909 году евреи из Яффо. Большинство их, судя по фамилиям, - ашкенази, однако ни о какой групповой политической ориентации в данном случае говорить нельзя.

Кварталы, появившиеся раньше, чем Ахузат-Баит, впоследствии примкнули к Тель-Авиву. Речь идет о Махане-Йегуда, Неве-Цедек и других районах, основанных выходцами из Йемена и Северной Африки. Нет оснований полагать, что они хоть в какой-то степени являлись социалистами.

Первыми евреями в Хайфе были сефарды, за годы первой и второй алии городская еврейская община разрослась.

Йоэль Моше Саломон - персонаж популярной песни о Петах-Тикве - был раввином. В ней, конечно, не упоминается, что он также является одним из основателей иерусалимского района Меа-Шеарим.

Продолжим движение на юг. Ашдод был создан вскоре после основания государства, первыми его жителями были евреи из Марокко. Ашкелон населили репатрианты из восточных стран, а главный вклад тогдашнего социалистического правительства Израиля заключался в том, что оно путем давления и угроз изгнало из Ашкелона и окрестностей последних арабов, не бежавших в 1948 году.

Ришон-ле-Цион был основан в XIX веке Первопроходческим учредительным комитетом, который основал хасид по имени Залман Левонтин на землях, приобретенных бароном Ротшильдом и Хаимом Амзалагом. Последний, как явствует из фамилии, был далеко не ашкеназом.

Город науки Реховот основан религиозным движением «Менуха ве-нахала» («Покой и земельный надел»).

Мазкерет-Батья, Зихрон-Яаков, Рош-Пина и многие другие поселки возникли на участках, которые были выкуплены на деньги барона Ротшильда и заселены представителями различных подгрупп движения «"Ховевей Цион" («Любящие Сион», палестинофилы), в том числе отколовшимися от БИЛУ. В попытках осуществления своей утопической мечты, в которой не должно быть денег и богатых патронов, они столкнулись с реальностью, в которой оказались необходимы деньги и богатый патрон (спонсор).

Герцлию основали американская еврейская ассоциация - отнюдь не социалистическая «Кеилат Цион» ("Община Сиона") и профсоюз "Бней Биньямин" («Сыны Биньямина»), который из-за своей правой ориентации не получал финансирование от левого Гистадрута.

«Бней Биньямин» основали в конце 20-х годов и город Нетанию, названный в честь филантропа Натана Штрауса, к которому члены этой организации вынужденно обратились за неимением другого источника финансирования. Кстати, Штраус во время посещения Святой Земли в 1912 году сломал ногу и вследствие этого отменил запланированное путешествие из Англии в Нью-Йорк на самом фешенебельном лайнере того времени "Титаник".

Холон появился в результате слияния пяти кварталов, первый из которых основал Шломо Грин – коммерсант из Яффо, сразу же открывший возле своей хижины синагогу. Бат-Ям основала инициативная группа религиозных семей из Тель-Авива происхождения. Бней-Брак создало ультраортодоксальное движение «Баит ве-нахала» («Дом и земельный надел»). Раанана основана в 1912 году американскими евреями без единой политической ориентации.

Первые земли Кфар-Сабы были куплены раввином Йехиелем Пинесом – вышеупомянутым спасителем БИЛУистов. Первые поселенцы в Кфар-Сабе в 1903 году были религиозными и светскими людьми без коллективной политической принадлежности.

Современная Беэр-Шева появилась по инициативе турецких властей Османской империи в начале ХХ века. Ее первыми жителями были бедуины – очевидно, ни ашкенази, ни социалисты. А первым современным еврейским войском, которое освободило территории Эрец-Исраэль от турок, была рота из 38-го батальона под командованием – кого бы вы думали? - Зеэва Жаботинского. Только не вздумайте упомянуть его имя на большевистских уроках истории!

Нес-Циона возникла во время первой алии усилиями хасида из ХАБАДа Реувена Лерера, члена "Ховевей Цион", потому что немец, продавший ему этот участок, заверил его, что он недалеко от Иерусалима.

Бейт-Шемеш вырос из маабары - поселка временного проживания новых репатриантов, в частности выходцев из восточных стран, а также Румынии и Болгарии. То же самое касается Кирьят-Гата, который превратился в городом благодаря репатриантам из Марокко; именно в их небогатой несоциалистической семье в 1965 году родилась девочка по имени Мириам Сибони, впоследствии ставшая министром культуры и спорта Израиля.

Еще раз подчеркнем: левые делали многое достойное песни и хвалы. Но стоило им прийти к власти, как они уничтожили остальных, создав политически субъективный исторический нарратив, лживый, в лучшем случае - полуправдивый. Таков левый подход со времен Французской революции: кто не с нами, тот против нас. А кто против нас, тому мы спокойной жизни не дадим.

Итак, товарищи левые, вас ждет неприятная новость: эта страна не только ваша. Израиль никогда не был и не будет вашим эксклюзивным брендом.

Вы хотите поговорить об уважении к другим? Начните с себя!

“And he took one of the stones of that place…”

“There will always be rocks in the road ahead of us. They will be stumbling blocks or steppingstones; it all depends on how you use them.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

I was seven years old when I first learned about the story of Ya’akov’s (Jacob) dream. It has captivated me ever since.

Imagine Jacob, a fugitive who is forced to leave his home and his family, a man who is doomed to a life of wandering after stealing the first born right from Esau. A man, so it seems, who is well on his way to becoming a "tragic hero."

At one point, he decides to follow the advice of his mother and visit his uncle, Laban, who lives in Haran. Haran is outside of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.

Needless to add that his journey is perilous and carries him through unfamiliar terrains. It takes much courage and determination to embark on such an undertaking.

Additionally, it is essential to preface here that in ancient times, the prevalent belief was that G-d dwelt and was present only within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. ”Eretz Yisrael is the House of G-d” (Or Ha Chayim Shemot 20:2). “He who dwells in Eretz Yisrael is like one who has a G-d, and he who dwells outside of the Land is like one who does not have a G-d.” (Ketuvot 110b).  

I can only imagine the emotional agitation and the storm that rages within Ya’akob as he is getting ready to spend the night in no man’s land, alone and consumed by the fear that G-d is not there to watch over him.  

After he finds a place to rest and sleep, Ya’akov puts a stone under his head and falls asleep. We all know that a hard stone could never take the place of a comfortable, soft pillow.

The question that is begging to be asked is, why would Jacob do that? Surely, he could use something less harsh in place of a pillow.

What role does the bulky stone under Ya’akov’s head have in this story?

The answer has everything to do with the dream that Ya’akov is about to dream. In it, he sees a ladder placed on earth, its head reaching the sky and the angels of G-d are climbing and descending it.

“Dad,” I asked my father after reading that dream for the first time at the age of seven, “where do angels dwell?” “In heaven, of course,” came the obvious answer. “So, why,” I persisted in my innocent way, “does it say that the angels first climbed the ladder and then came down? If they are in heaven above, don’t they need to come down first and then climb up?”

My father was speechless. “I have read this story so many times,” he admitted, “but the question that you raise never occurred to me.” He decided to go and see Rabbi Sokolover, the then chief rabbi of Ra’anana, my home town.

“What a wise girl,“ I remember the rabbi saying when my father posed the question to him. Rash”i and a seven years old girl ask the same question. Rash”i, “continued the rabbi, “explains that the angels that descended were those that accompanied Ya’akov on his journey throughout Eretz Yisrael. As he was about to leave Eretz Yisrael those bid him farewell and he was joined by the angels of foreign lands who were entrusted with guarding him. As the dream continues, Ya’akov suddenly experiences G-d who blesses him, promises to give him the land upon which he lies, and pledges to watch over him and protect him. Through his dream, Ya’akov learns that G-d’s presence, his guardianship and the protection of his angels continue to cloak him with a blanket of security and ensure his well-being. It must have been quite a relief for his forlorn soul.

Back to the stone that Ya’akov put under his head. I believe that it plays a very important role in this episode The hard stone, naturally, causes Ya’akov’s head to be tilted. Tilting the head is one way of showing respect. In a symbolic way, the stone prepared Ya’akov to the revelation of G-d, something that Ya’akov had never expected.

Moreover, unbeknown to him, Ya’akov spent the night in what we learn is a holy place. He takes the stone upon which he rested his head, sets up a monument, pours oil on it and names the place Beit El where a House of G-d will one day be erected. He also vows to give one tenth of his possessions to charity should he return to Eretz Yisrael safely.

The stone, as many perceive it, represents the lowest point in nature – the power of the inanimate. Frankly, how many of us truly look at or regard stones as bearing any significance?

However, as the episode above suggests, even stones, can be of value and capable of absorbing sanctity and divinity. Not only do they not disturb the revelation of G-d, they support and facilitate it as well as join it.

In the words of Nietzche, I hope that, like Ya'akov, we all turn the rocks/stones which could threaten to become the stumbling blocks on the journey of our life into stepping stones and veer our experiences along that path into rewarding and meaningful encounters which will lead us to a life of fulfillment and sheer bliss.

Shavua tov  to all. ❤ ❤ ❤

Who built the modern State of Yisrael

Recently, Minister Miri Regev has come yet again under a monthly dose of fire, this time over the assertive manner in which she protected PM Benjamin Netanyahu. As always, the critics could not resist the temptation of Making some semi-racist remarks about Miri Regev’s origins’ accompanied with the reminder that “The Left Founded the state.

Did it? Most of us, myself included, occasionally repeat this myth, and in our imagination we envision Socialist pioneers with a Russian accent and rolled up sleeves, who courageously left the conservative tradition behind and made their way to the deserted land to create all out of nothing. Is that the case indeed? Prior to checking that, we need to preface and say that the Zionist Left did much. It has established kibbutzim and agricultural communities, it created facts on the ground which created an interminable Jewish territoriality. Most of the "Homa Umigdal" (an improvised construction system during the British Mandate period) settlements, which were important for drawing borders were part of the Left. The Left created central institutions, prepared for the future state and turned Hebrew into an everyday language. Eliezer ben Yehudah was indeed the person who revived the language but it was the immigrants from the movements of the Left were the ones who took it seriously and insisted on the use of the language. The Left led the way to instating the ethos of labor and safeguard.

It raised awareness to the necessity of Jews working their ancestral land rather than using Arab workers. The Left was momentous in setting up the military wing of the Jews in Yisrael the Haganah and the Palmach which later became the IDF. One cannot underestimate the cardinal role of the Zionist Left movements.

However, and it is a big however, the Left was not alone. Along with it were many others. Its historical sin was that it decided to entirely exclude the others instead of sharing with them the honor that they deserved. The Left took control of the narrative, dictated what future generations will know or rather not know.

When I was at the age of zero and a bit, in elementary school, my friends and I wrote a song for the Choir: "In the beginning there was swamps and barren land/until our brothers arrived, they were the Bil"uyim/ they set up settlements/ and had no choice but to fight the Arabs."

This is what we absorbed from our studies. No one, no teacher, no parent, bothered to correct us that the bil"uyim were but a small and insignificant group of the first wave of immigration, sixty people, half of whom escaped back to Russia and those that remained ended up fighting among themselves, the way the assertive socialists do. Not a success story to say the least.

And oh, by the way, - another small detail: in 1980, prior to the first wave of mass immigration, there were already 27,000 Jews (mostly Sfaradim) in Eret Yisrael, later reffered to as "Hayeshuv Hayashan," descendants of the continuous Jewish presence in the land.

When did the first wave of immigration start? All together now - 1882. Wrong. The first waves started already in 1881. These included 2500 Yemenite Jews. But in 1882 the first fourteen Bilu"yim arrived and the Bolshevik educational system brainwashed us into believing that they were the forerunners. Until this very day, on the Labor party's web page, Bil"u is mentioned as those whose arrival in Eretz Yisrael symbolized the first wave of immigration.

Thirty four settlements were established during the first wave of immigration, out of them how many were created by Bil"u? Twenty? Ten? Shall we compromise on three? One - Gedera. And even that was due to the purchase of land for them by Rabbi Yechiel Pines of the Religious Zionism. No one hinted that almost all of those from the first wave of immigration and the old establishment were religious, observant Jews. What was stressed repeatedly was Bil"u Bil"u Bil"u, the acronym of Beit Yaakov Lechu Venelcha. Needless to mention that the verse from Isaiah (2;5) was never quoted in it entirety, "Beit Yaakov Lecho Venelcha B'or Hashem." ("Come, descendants of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord"). After all, Socialists are enlightened people, they do not discuss nonsense of those who are religious.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check and see how many of the towns in Yisrael were established by the Left.

The exit outside of the Walls in Jerusalem started already in the middle of the 19th century, so, it turns out, there was not much of the Left there. There were Ashkenazic as well as Sefardic Jews and the main donor was Moses Montefiori with the help of a fund bequeathed by the American Jewish philanthropist, Judah Toro. Both Toro and Montefiore were of Sefardic origins and devoid of any connection to socialism.

Ahuzat Bayit which after a year became Tel-Aviv was established in 1909 by Jews from Jaffa. Judging by their names, most were Ashkenazi without any defined political affiliation (and

why should there be Left or Right to found a settlement? What's the relevance?)

The neighborhoods which preceded Ahuzat Bayit which later included Mahaneh Yehudah, Neve Tzedek and others were established by immigrants from Yemen and North Africa. There is reason to believe that they were not socialists and did not drink from such mecchiato.

The first Jewish settlers in Haifa were Sefardic. Later the settlement widened during the first and second waves of immigration. Yoel Moshe Solomon the one who with his friends made the first experiment in Petah Tikvah "on a damp morning in the year of tarla"ch" (1878), was a rabbi. In the song bearing his name it is not even mentioned that he was one of the founders of the neighborhood of Mea Shearim.

Let us move southward - present day Ashdod was established after the founding of the State of Yisrael and its first residents were Moroccan Jews. Ashkelon, likewise, by the mere fact that it is situated far enough from the pure and unblemished center of the country, it was settled by immigrants from the East. The socialist government still had its delicate touch to the subject - through applying pressure and threats they forced out of the area those Arabs who did not flee in '48. Fortunately, nowadays, they have the time to oppose the commemoration of Gandi.

Rishon letzion was established in the 19th century by the committee of Yesod Hama'alah, founded by a Chabbad member' Zalman Levontin, on lands that were purchased by Baron Rothschild and Haim Amzaleg, who as his name suggests, was not an Ashkenazi. Rehovot, the city of science was established by the Religious Movement- "Menucha V'Nachalah."

Mazkeret Batya, Zichron Ya'akov, Rosh Pinah and many other settlements are the purchase of Baron Rothschild which were settled by different groups of "Hovevei Zion" (Lovers of Zion). Among them were traces of Bil"u and they had to face a reality in which one needs money and a patron in order to realize the Utopia in which one does not need money and a patron.

Herzliya was founded by the Jewish - American (and far from a socialist) "Kehilat Zion" and by Histadroot Benei Binyamin. Since it had Right wing inclinations, it was not sponsored by the Zionist Federation. What else is new.

Benei Binyamin founded, in the late 20's the city of Netanya which names after Natan Shtraus to whom the founders were forced to turn as there was no other monetary resource, so the mere naming of Netanya, testifies to its ‘inappropriate’ political source. An interesting story which is unrelated to Right-Left and testimonial : Natan Shtraus broke his leg while visiting Eretz Yisrael in 1912. As a result, he was forced to cancel his then planned trip from England to New York in a gigantic luxury ship, the first of its kind : the Titanic.

Holon was established through the unification of five neighborhoods, the first of which was founded by Moshe Green, an observant Jew from Jaffa who immediately set up a synagogue next to his hut. Bat-Yam was erected by a nucleus of observant and religious families, originally from Tel - Aviv.

Bnei Brak was formed by the Hareidi Movement of "Bayit Venachalah."

Ra'anana was formed in 1912 by American Jews. The first lands of Kfar Saba were also purchased by Rabbi Yechiel Pines, the very same one who had saved the butt of the last of the Bil"uyim. The first settlers of Kfar Saba in 1903 were religious and secular without any political affiliation, at least not anything that is related to the settlement of the land.

Nes Ziona was founded during the first wave of immigration by a Chabbad Hasid, Reuven Lerer, a member of "Hovevei Zion," since the German who sold it to him told him that it was near Jerusalem. Beit Shemesh, in its early years, a transit camp, where many of its residents were immigrants from middle eastern countries plus a few Romanians and Bulgarians. The same was the case with Kiryat Gat, a transit camp which became a city founded by immigrants from Morocco, and in which a baby girl was born in 1965 to a struggling family, an un-socialist girl, undoubtedly, by the name of Miriam Siboni, whom we know today as Minister Miri Regev.

O.K. so we strike out cities. But what about the defense forces that the Left established? The Palma"ch, and the Haganah and Yigal Alon and the "beautiful forelock?" Everything is correct and everything is very important, but the first Jewish force that fought and liberated an area from the Turks in Eeretz Yisrael was company 38 of the Hebrew Brigade (The Jewish Legion) under the command of – guess who? - Ze'ev Zabotinsky. G-d forbid that we should mention such a detail in the Bolshevik history lesson. Incidentally, Zabotinsky also published a book at that time which explains how to pronounce Hebrew correctly, in a

Sefardic pronunciation.

And let us stress yet again - the Left has done much, very much. We should, by all means, continue to tell it, praise it and sing it. Kol Hakavod. However, the moment it got hold of all power strongholds, it erased the others created an unbalanced political narrative, chewed and agenda ridden truth. And it is known already that half a truth is worse than lying.

In the story, education, the state as a whole, "those who do not sing with us" were pushed aside. There will be those who will say that this is the result of hostility and exclusion of members of the Old Settlement towards the secular socialists who had arrived from Russia with ideas that seemed crazy.

Perhaps, yet the Left's approach since it emerged from its egg during the French Revolution has always been: either you are with us or against us, no middle. And if you are not with us we shall fight you, banish you, embitter your life.

Dear Left, Miriam Siboni, the young girl from Kiryaqt Gat, who became the Minister of Culture and Sport, you should have welcomed with a standing ovation. Miri Regev was your chance to make the switch. But, as always, you responded by acting in an aloof manner and stupid arrogance. You were cheered by being petty over nonsense. You are still with the sensation that you are the state, that it was stolen from you, a sensation which you pass on to the next generation and that is why twenty years old Meretz and Labor voters believe that they have blue blood. So here is the news: Not only is the state is not yours - Yisrael never, at any stage was never your exclusive brand name. Talk about respecting the other? Start with that.

Almah

Almah means “a maiden,” or “an unmarried woman” in Hebrew. It appears in a few places in the Tanach. Two are of special interest to me. The is first mentioned in the Tanach in this week’s Parashah (Genesis 24). The other, in the Book of Isaiah (7, 14).

Had the discussion over the use of the term in Isaiah not surfaced in a past exchange that I had, the one in this week’s Parashah would have gone unnoticed by me and this essay not written. So, let me get right to it.

About twenty years ago, a fellow Jew, who embraced Yeshua (AKA Jesus) as his messiah, and I were debating the issue. When I asked him what convinced him to make that decision, he directed me to the said verse in Isaiah. Someone, sometime, somewhere, so it seemed, tried and evidently succeeded to mislead him by telling him that the verse in question is a prediction of the birth of Jesus whom we, Jews, rejected as our messiah. For those who are unfamiliar with that specific verse, here It is: “Therefor the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son’ and shall call his name Immanuel.”

It includes, so it seems, G-d, a virgin and a son, all the essential elements needed to persuade simple, uneducated and baffled Jews that it referred to Jesus.  Not so fast, I say. As a native Hebrew speaker, I hated to burst his bubble of belief in a comforting and rewarding way of life which shakes any form of personal responsibility off us. And what a better way to convince the gullible, naïve souls seeking redemption than to use a mistranslation of the Hebrew language, deliberate or otherwise, to please the perplexed?

The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah. If Isaiah had indeed intended to impress upon us that he was prophesying the immaculate conception, would he, a speaker of Hebrew, not used “betulah” instead of “almah?”

“But hey,” retorted my devout “Jew for Jesus” challenger, “were not all maidens, during Biblical era, expected to be virgins?” A valid argument, one would suggest.

It is on occasions such as this that I enlist the help of a publication called “Bible Concordance,” a verbal index to the Bible. It lists every word that appears in the Tanach and cites it. Since my challenger suggested that a Biblical maiden had to be a virgin, I looked up the references to a “maiden’ and the context in which they were used.  “Maiden” appears seven times in the Tanach.

 The first one appears in this Parashah (Genesis 24:43) where Eliezer, the servant of Avraham describes Rivkah, the future wife of Yitzchak, as a maiden, “See, I am standing beside this spring. If a maiden comes out to draw water and I say to her, “’Please let me drink a little water from your jar.’” In that same chapter, verse 17, Rivkah is described as a “Virgin,” betulah “that no man knew” (and we all know what “to know” means in the Biblical sense).

The question that is begging to be asked is, if indeed it was so clear that in Biblical times, almah was akin to betulah, why was there a need to reiterate it in the case of Rivkah? Evidently, it was not that obvious.

Another question that is begging to be asked is, how did the Hebrew almah become “virgin” in the English translation of Isaiah?

That has everything to do with the Greek translation of the Tanach, a translation, which as I have shown in the past, has caused us, Jews, and our Tanach much damage.

It all started in the third century B.C.E. with the Greek ruler, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the king of Ptolemic Egypt. An educated man, Ptolemy wished to augment his library in Alexandria and commissioned seventy-two (six from each of the twelve tribes) scholars to translate the Torah and later the rest of the Tanach into Greek. This translation came to be known as “The Septuagint” (Seventy in Latin). The main reason for producing the translation was for the benefit of the many Jews who were scattered throughout the Greek Empire and who were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The translation also gave many non - Jews an opportunity to have a glimpse at the Hebrew Scriptures. Apparently, a noble cause but, as you will soon learn, dear readers, a great reason for alarm.

In Greek, the word Parthenos means BOTH “maiden” and “virgin.” Isn’t it natural, therefore, that to make their case for the immaculate conception, early Christianity conveniently chose the word virgin instead of the original Hebrew word for maiden?

Wishing my fellow Jews Shabbat Shalom, a meaningful Thanksgiving celebration to my fellow Americans and a weekend full of blessings to all.

“And for your husband shall your Desire be….”

The story of Creation as recounted in Bresheet continues to fascinate me. It is not only the details of the evolvement of our universe that intrigues me. That is but one facet of it.

What continues to enthrall me, though, is what happened to Man and Woman following the consumption of the Fruit of the Tree of “Knowledge.” I am particularly referring to the change in perceptions, comprehension, insights and what lesson G-d had wanted us, humans, to draw out of that experience.

In my essay of two weeks ago, I dwelt on the benefits of eating the forbidden fruit. I also mentioned that the main gain from that rebellious act of Adam and Eve was a moral one as they learned to distinguish between Good and Evil. The story in Genesis also tells us that as soon as they ate the fruit, Man and Woman were made aware of their bareness and rushed to cover themselves as they felt ashamed and that it was morally bad and inappropriate.

In many cultures, being naked or even semi naked is associated with lust, sex and sensuality. It has thus become a taboo in many societies. Some, however, as, for example the tribes I visited in Namibia where women walk bare breasted publicly, see nothing bad or evil in such practices. We, in most parts of the world, regard it as inappropriate and that is what is being taught to us from an early age.

So, why do so many of us believe that nudity is morally “Evil?” After all, had Man and Woman not walked shamelessly unclothed for a while before they discovered their nakedness? “Adam and his wife were both naked’ and they felt no shame.” Genesis 2:25.

And that is where the terms “Desire” and “Lust” enter the discussion.

Unfortunately, “lust” (ta’avah) and desire (tshukah) appear, both in the Hebrew and the English languages, as synonyms for each other. Though these two terms have some common denominator, I beg to differ. Lust (ta’av ah), in my view, is mostly associated with the physical, carnal and sexual realm. It is an urgent need that once satisfied, lies dormant until some stimuli, some catalyst awakens it again.

Desire (tshukah), however, is a fabric that is made up of various threads. It encompasses longing, love, ambition, an urge, an attraction for someone or something. Of course, it also includes the erotic, the sensual but not just that, as the term Lust resonates.

Herein, in my view, lies the lesson that G-d had wished Adam and Eve, especially Eve, to take on. It was she who first saw that “the fruit of the tree was good and lust (ta’avah) to the eyes.” (Genesis 3:6). It was lust, as the verse teaches us, that caused their downfall and eventual eviction from the Garden of Eden. G-d had known that lust would be the Achilles’s heel of mankind. He had also been aware that once Man and Woman discovered each other’s nakedness, lust will take over.

It is precisely this kind of a reality that G-d was trying to avoid. Knowing the effect Eve had on Adam, He informed her, “Your desire will be for your husband.” (Genesis 3:16). Since it was Eve who lured Adam into eating the forbidden fruit, G-d ordered her to desire her husband, to love him, support him, be there for him and lust him but NOT JUST lust him. He employs the word Tshukah to imply the unending union between Man and Woman, a union that is based on the Spiritual, Emotional and Intellectual spheres, not merely the carnal.

And that is the lesson of this episode, I believe. It is the differences rather than the similarities between Desire and Lust which morally set Good and Evil apart.

The Tree of Life and the Tree of Mind

“The tree of Life was amid the garden and the Tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9)

Last week we read ‘Parashat Bresheet,’ the first Torah portion of the Book of Bresheet (AKA “Genesis”). The Parasha recounts the two stories of Creation. The first narrates the creation of the universe, the second details the creation of Man and Woman and the account of the Garden of Eden, which G-d charged them with the duty to protect.

Some of you may raise their eyebrows in wonder upon reading the title of this essay. Yes, we have all heard about the Tree of Life but what is the Tree of Mind?

This question brings me back to a subject that I have dwelt on in the past, a painful subject I might add and the source of some serious concern to me. I am referring to the translation or rather the mistranslation of the Tanach first to Greek and later to other languages.

The mistranslation of the account of the name of the tree of “knowledge,” in the Garden of Eden is a case in point.

Those who read, speak and understand Hebrew will surely agree with me that the Hebrew refers to the Tree of Mind (Da’at) rather than Knowledge (Yeda). Da’at (Mind) is a very wide concept. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “mind” as “the part of a person that makes it possible for him or her to think, feel emotions and understand things.”  Mind, therefore, encompasses wisdom, understanding AND knowledge.

The forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate did not provide them with knowledge only. It gave them the understanding, the ability to acquire Moral Knowledge, to process, internalize and use it. To reduce the Tree of Mind or minimize its qualities to mere “knowledge” is, in my view, a gross injustice to G-d, to its role and to humans.

To explain my point, I enlist the help of the wise Maimonides. In part 1 of Chapter 1 of his “Guide for the Perplexed,” Maimonides distinguishes between physical appearance and the essence of humans, Tzelem. When the Torah describes Man as having been created B’Tzelem Elohim,” Rambam refers to it as “sechel” (intellect), man’s rational and analytical faculties. That was part of Man’s genetic code from the outset.

               “On account of this gift of intellect, man was addressed by G-d, and received                  His commandments, as it is said : ‘And the Lord commanded Adam’                              (Genesis 2:16) – for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to                    those who are devoid of understanding.” 

In other words, Man was created with the potential to learn, understand and assimilate knowledge.

Evidently, there was a missing element in the process, for as the story unfolds, we learn that Man and Woman were not fulfilling the task that they were entrusted with. What was missing is the component that would help translate Man’s inherent gift from G-d into a useful and productive learning curve.

That was the role of fruit of The Tree of Mind.

Only AFTER they ate from the Tree were Adam and Eve able to distinguish between Good and Evil, as we learn from the Parashah. The snake, the “most shrewd creature of all,” who was aware of it revealed that to Eve : “For G-d knows that when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like G-d, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5).

Knowledge (Yeda) deprived of the galvanizing effect of wisdom and understanding is akin to giving someone a fishing rod without teaching them how to fish or a car without teaching them how to drive. The fruit of the Tree of Mind was the missing link, the trigger that connected the two realms, knowledge and comprehension, and jump started our learning process.

Rambam further suggests that Adam and Eve were right for eating from the Tree of Mind even at the threat of death. That spark of Tselem in which Man was created dictated that it is better to be mortal yet knowledgeable and aware of his surrounding rather than forever be stuck in a fool’s paradise without any wisdom’ understanding and knowledge. G-d, who created us in His image knew that we will have the desire and the curiosity to learn more.

May we continue to learn, grow and apply the moral lessons which the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Mind was meant to help us acquire albeit at, what some consider, a very dear price.