#Hebrew words defined

[yhebrew]

Dedicated to Lauren born Sabbath 12 Nissan

All around the world these Scriptures are read just before Passover. Lauren was born on 12 Nissan. There is a message for all of us.

12 Nissan 5783, 1 April 2023 Parshah 25: Tzav (Give an order) Leviticus (Vayikra) 6:1 (8) – 8:36 Haftarah Tzav” Jeremiah (Yirmeyahu) 7:21-8:3; 9:22 – 23 B’rit Hadashah: Mark 12:28-34; Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 10:14-23 Psalms 133 When Brothers Dwell in Unity Psa 133:1  [A song of ascents. By David:] Oh, how good, how pleasant it is for brothers to live together in harmony.  Psa 133:2 …

[baroque-hashem]

WAIT I JUST GOT YOUR URL THATS AMAZING THATS A TOP TEIR JOKE

This is one of those times I kinda wish people wouldn't use anon so much because I wanna grab this person and go, "Hey, cool! Now explain the joke..."

But I can't because they're, th--I don't know who this is....

[cowpokezuko]

fundie christians love to use hebrew words to talk about god and also be aggressively anti-semitic.

[mashkaroom]

Translation thoughts on the greatest poem of our time, “His wife has filled his house with chintz. To keep it real I fuck him on the floor”

It’s actually quite tricky to translate. Because it’s so short, each word and grammatical construction is carrying a lot of weight. It also, as people have noted, plays with registers. “Chintz” is a word with its own set of associations. Chintz is a type of fabric with its origins in India. The disparaging connotation is from chintz’s eventual commonality. Chintz was actually banned from England and France because the local textile mills couldn’t compete.

Keep it real” is tremendously difficult to translate -- it’s a bit difficult to even define. It means to be authentic and genuine, but it also has connotations of staying true to one’s roots. Like many English slang words, it comes first from AAVE. From this article on the phrase:

“[K]eeping it real meant performing an individual’s experience of being Black in the United States. As such, it became a form of resistance. Insisting on a different reality, one that wasn’t recognized by the dominant culture, empowered Black people to ‘forge a parallel system of meaning,’ according to cultural critic Mich Nyawalo...The phrase’s roots in racialized resistance, however, were erased when it was adopted by the mostly-White film world of the 1970s and ’80s....Keeping it real in this context indicated a performance done so well that audiences could forget it was a performance.This version of keeping it real wasn’t about testifying to personal experience; it was about inventing it.”

One has to imagine that jjbang8 did not have the origins of these phrases in mind when composing the poem, but even if by coincidence, the etymological and cultural journeys of these two central lexemes perfectly reflect the themes of the poem. The two words have themselves traveled away from the authenticity they once represented, and, in a new context, have taken on new meanings -- the hero of our poem, the unnamed “him”, is, presumably, in quite a similar situation.

Setting aside the question of register, of the phonology, prosody, and meter of the original, of the information that is transmitted through bits of grammar that don’t necessarily exist in other languages -- a gifted translator might be able to account for all of these -- how do you translate the journey of the words themselves?

In my translations, I decided to go for the most evocative words, even if they don’t evoke the exact same things as in the original. The strength of these two lines is that they imply that there’s more than just what you see, whether that’s the details of the story -- what’s happening in the marriage? how do the narrator and the husband know each other? -- or the cultural background of the very words themselves. I wanted to try and replicate this effect.

Yiddish first:

זייַן ווייַב האָט אָנגעפֿילט זייַן הויז מיט הבלים

צו בלייַבן וויטיש, איך שטוף אים אופֿן דיל. zayn vayb hot ongefilt zayn hoyz mit havolim.

tsu blaybn vitish, ikh shtup im afn dil

This translation is pretty direct. There is a word for chintz in Yiddish -- tsits -- but, as far as I can tell, it refers only to the fabric; it doesn’t have the same derogatory connotation as in English. I chose, instead, havolim, a loshn-koydesh word that means “vanity, nothingness, nonsense, trifles”. In Hebrew, it can also mean breath or vapor. I chose this over the other competitors because it, too, is a word with a journey and with a secondary meaning. Rather than imagining the bright prints of chintz, we might imagine a more olfactory implication -- his wife has filled his house with perfumes or cleaning fluids. It can carry the implication that something is being masked as well as the associations with vanity and gaudiness.

Vitish -- Okay, this is a good one. Keep in mind, of course, that I’ve never heard or seen it used before today, so my understanding of its nuances is very limited, but I’ll explain to you exactly how I am sourcing its meaning. The Comprehensive Yiddish-English Dictionary (CYED) gives this as “gone astray (esp. woman); slang correct, honest”. I used the Yiddish Book Center’s optical character recognition software, which allows you to search for strings in their corpus, to confirm that both usages are, in fact, attested. It’s a pretty rare word in text, though, as the CYED implies, it might have been more common in spoken speech. It appears in a glossary in “Bay unds yuden” (Among Us Jews) as a thieves cant word, where it’s definted as נאַריש, שרעקעוודיק, אונבעהאלפ. אויך נישט גנביש. אין דער דייַטשער גאַונער-שפראַך --  witsch -- נאַריש, or “foolish, terrible, clumsy/pathetic. not of the thieves world. in the German thieves cant witsch means foolish”. A vitishe nekeyve (vitishe woman) is either a slacker or a prostitute. I can’t prove this for sure, but my sense is that it might come from the same root as vitz, joke (it’s used a couple of times in the corpus to mention laughing at a vitish remark -- which makes it seem kind of similar to witty). I assume the German thieve’s cant that’s being referred to is Rotwelsch, which has its own fascinating history and, in fact, incorporates a lot of Yiddish. In fact, for this reason, some of the first Yiddish linguists were actually criminologists! What an excellent set of associations, no? It has the slangy sense of straightforward of honest; it has a sense of sexual non-normativity (we might use it to read into the relationship between the narrator and the husband) -- and a feminized one at that; it was used by an underground subculture, and, again, the meaning there was quite different -- like the “real” in “keeping it real” it was used to indicate whether or not someone was “in” on the life (tho “real” is used to mean that the person is in, while “vitish” is used to mean they’re not). It’s variety of meanings are more ambiguous than “keep it real”, which can pretty much only be read positively, and it also brings in a tinge of criminality. Though it doesn’t have the same exact connotations as “keep it real”, I think it’s about as ideal of a fit as we’ll get because it’s equally evocative of more below the surface. I also chose “tsu blaybn vitish”, which is “to stay vitish”, as opposed to something like “to make it vitish” to keep the slight ambiguity of time that “keep it real” has -- keeping it real does< I think, imply that there is a pre-existing “real” to which one can adhere, so I wanted to imply the same.

The rest is straight-forward. “Shtup” is one of a few words the Comprehensive English-Yiddish Dictionary (CEYD) gives for “fuck”, and I think it has a nice sound.

Ok, now Russian

женой твой дом наполнен финтифлюшками

чтоб не блудить с пути, ебемся на полу

zhenoy tvoy dom napolnin fintiflyushkami.

shtob ne bludit’ s puti’, yebyomsya na polu

In order to preserve, more or less, the iambic meter, I made a few more changes here -- since Russian, unlike Yiddish, is not a Germanic language, it’s harder to keep the same structure + word order while also maintaining the rhythm. I would translate this back to English as:

“Your house is filled with trifles by your wife. To not stray off the path, we’re fucking on the floor”

So a few notes before we get into the choice of words for “chintz” and “keep it real”. To preserve the iamb, I changed “his” to “your”. This changes the lines from a narration of events to some outside party to a conversation between the two men at the center. Russian also has both formal and informal you (formal you is also the plural form, as is the case in a number of other languages). I went with informal you because I wanted to preserve the fact that his wife has filled his house not their house, as someone pointed out in the original chain (though I don’t think that differentiation is nearly as striking in the 2nd person) and because it’s unlikely you’d be on formal you with someone you’re fucking (unless it’s, like, a kink thing). I honestly didn’t even consider making it formal, but that would actually raise a lot of interesting implications about the relationship between the speaker and the husband, as well as with what that means about the “realness” of the situation. Is, in fact, the narrator only creating a mirage of a more real, more meaningful encounter, while the actual truth -- that there is a woman the husband has made promises to that he’s betraying -- is obscured? that this intimacy is just a facade? Is there perhaps some sort of power differential that the narrator wishes to point out? Or perhaps is the way that the narrator is keeping it real by pointing out the distance between the two of them? there is no pretense of intimacy, the narrator is calling this what it is -- an encounter without deeper significance?

Much to think about, but I actually think the two men do have history --  i think the narrator remembers the house back when it was actually only “his house” and was as yet unfilled with chintz. We also don’t know what they were calling each other prior to this moment. This could be the first time they switched to the informal you. 

Ok moving on, I originally translated it as “твой дом наполнен финтифлюшками жены”. Honestly, this sounds more elegant than what I have now, but I ultimately though removing the wife from either a subject or agent position (grammatically, I mean) was too big a betrayal of the original. The original judges the wife. She took an active role in filling the house. If she were made passive, that read is certainly a possible one -- perhaps even the dominant one -- but it could also read more like “we are doing this in a space filled with reminders of his wife and the life they share” -- the action of filling is no longer what’s being focused on. Why do I say the current translation is inelegant? I feel you stumble over it a little, because it’s almost a garden path sentence. This is also an assset though. “Zhenoy tvoy dom napolnen” is a fully grammatical sentence on its own, and it means “Your house is filled by your wife” -- as in English, the primary read is that the wife is what the house is full of. If the sentence makes you stumble, perhaps that’s even good -- we focus, for good reason, on the relationship between the two men, but in a translation, the wife is able to draw more attention to herself.

Ok, chintz: I chose the word “финтифлюшки” (fintiflyushki), meaning trifle/bobble/tchotchke, because it, allegedly, comes from the german phrase finten und flausen, meaning illusions and vanity/nonsense. Once again, I like that the word has a journey, specifically a cross-linguistic one.

Keep it real: this one, frankly, fails to capture the impact of the original, in my opinion, but allow me to explain the reasoning. “Stray off the path” implies, again, that there is some sort of path that both the narrator and the husband were on before the wife and the chintz -- and one they intend to continue taking, one that this act is a maintenance of. It brings in a little irony, since the husband very much is straying from the path of his marriage. “Bludit’“ can also mean to be unfaithful in a marriage (as, in fact, can “stray”). The proto-slavic word it comes from can mean to delude or debauch -- they want to do the latter but not the former.

As for register -- “shtob” is a bit informal. I would write the full version (shto by) in an email, for example. The word for fuck, yebyomsa, is from one of the “mat” words, the extra special top tier of russian swears, definitely not to be said in polite company (and, if you are a man of a certain generation or background, not in front of women; it’s not that the use of mat automatically invokes a male-only environment, but if we’re already thinking that deeply about it. But while we’re on the topic, i will say that in my circles in the US, women use mat much more actively than men (at least in front of me, who was, up until recently, a woman and also a child).)

Ok i think that’s all the comments i have!

[probablyasocialecologist]

Hasbara is a Hebrew word defined by the Israeli government as “public diplomacy” that seeks to “influence the perception of Israel abroad.” Critics like Noam Chomsky, meanwhile, have described hasbara more bluntly as a “sophisticated system of propaganda.” On the internet, hasbara now includes a network of websites and users dedicated to manufacturing pro-Israel posts and manipulating social media platforms to remove content sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The online Hasbara Machine is sophisticated indeed, and its existence raises an important question: why doesn’t anyone in a position of power seem to be concerned? So far, the Washington Post is one of the only prominent news outlets to touch this subject. In an eye-opening January 25 article for the paper, Taylor Lorenz describes a variety of websites and apps that “help automate pro-Israel activism online.” As it turns out, this is an understatement. One website uncovered by Lorenz, called “Project T.R.U.T.H.,” claims to generate AI “fact check” responses to posts about Israel, ready-made for the user to copy and paste online. (The acronym stands for “Timely Responses for Unbiased Transparency and Honesty.”) Two others are called “Moovers” and “Words of Iron.” On these sites, users are not only supplied with pro-Israel content to post, but encouraged to report as “hate speech” designated posts that criticize Israel or express sympathy for Palestinians. When I first read it back in January, I found Lorenz’s article incredibly disturbing. So I decided to visit a few of these websites and see for myself how they operate. What I found only increased my alarm. 

[thewordfortheday]

THE WORD FOR 26/12

Paul says: "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6) How does the Bible define faith? According to Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Thus faith means putting your trust in Jesus and having confidence that He will fulfill His promises. When the world seems to be falling apart, our faith stands secure on the rock-solid, trustworthy promises of God and His Word.

My prayer for you today is that you may always have this kind of faith, and that you may receive all that God has in store for you!

 God is wholly trustworthy, so much so that we can base our lives on Him and His Word, no matter what our physical eyes tell us. 

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

To follow up on my Hosanna poll, I think before things go any further, it'd be good to actually explain and define it. I was initially going to wait until the end of the poll, but it seems that google is giving people a lot of bad and/or conflicting answers and I'd rather people walk away with the correct information.

So! Hosanna is an anglicized version of the Hebrew words "hosha na" [הושע נא or as a contraction הושענא]. Hosha na is a little enigmatic and hard to translate, but the simplest translation is probably "save us, please." It's traditionally used as an exclamation to G-d to rescue us, but it also has shades of being a triumphant shout (the implication being confidence that G-d will save us.)

Jews say "hoshanot" (the plural of hosha na) as part of our traditional Sukkot liturgy, and is something we do still today.

For us, the multi-faceted meaning of the root word allows us to have multiple layers of meaning. During Sukkot, we start praying for rain in its proper season and amounts, and we shake the lulav and etrog as part of these processions and liturgy. On Hoshana Rabba [the "great hoshana"], the last day of Sukkot, we process around the bimah (front lectern) seven times as a completion of our season of repentance and our starting of the new year with abundant blessings.

My siddur (prayer book) Lev Shalem has this as an explanation and translation:

[Image ID is of the Lev Shalem siddur, pages 382 & 383 - I tried hard to find a pdf of this that would be readable using a screen reader, but the versions I'm finding cut off at pg. 376 at the latest. If anyone has bandwidth to type this up, I would greatly appreciate it]

For the curious, here is a recording of the Hoshanot liturgy and procession:

Christians mostly know the word from the gospels and hymns.

Here is what Wikipedia says about its use in Christianity:

Historical meaning

Since those welcoming Jesus were Jewish, as of course Jesus himself was, some would interpret the cry of "Hosanna" on the entry of Jesus in its proper meaning, as a cry by the people for salvation and rescue.

Christian reinterpretation

"Hosanna" many interpret as a shout of praise or adoration made in recognition of the messiahship of Jesus on his entry into Jerusalem

It is applied in numerous verses of the New Testament, including "Hosanna! blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lᴏʀᴅ!" (Matthew 21:9,15; Mark 11:9–10; John 12:13), which forms part of the Sanctus prayer; "hosanna in the highest" (Mark 11.10); and "hosanna to the Son of David" (Matt 21:9). These quotations, however, are of words in the Jewish Psalm 118. Although not used in the book of Luke, the testimony of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is recorded in Luke 19.

In church music

The "Hosanna Anthem", based on the phrase Hosanna, is a traditional Moravian Church anthem written by Bishop Christian Gregor of Herrnhut sung on Palm Sunday and the first Sunday of Advent. It is antiphonal, i.e. a call-and-response song; traditionally, it is sung between the children and adult congregation, though it is not unheard of for it to be done in other ways, such as between choir and congregation, or played between trombone choirs.

The bottom line:

Jews and Christians have different connections, associations, and meanings attached to this word as expressions of our different theologies and texts. The word is derived from a Hebrew word and was created by Jews and is still used by us today. (Like literally today - we are currently in the middle of the Sukkot festival.) Christians changed the meaning to fit within their own context, and pronunciation of the word evolved with linguistic drift over time. In the same way that there's not a reason to pitch a fit over saying Jesus rather than Yeshua, there's no compelling reason to change hosanna back to hosha na; if anything, the distinction helps make it clear that it's effectively a different word and concept from ours.

On the other hand, I do think Christians ought to know the original meaning of the word if they're going to use it. To only ever know their version when it was derived from ours is yet another small way of playing into supercessionism by erasing and replacing the Jewish context of things that were originated in Judaism that Christians have embedded in Christianity. While the Christians of today cannot unwind the supercessionism of Christian history, they *can* choose to understand their present Christianity in ways that do not play into supercessionism and that respect the Jewish community of today.

I hope this was helpful and gives folks a new perspective on an obscure Hebrew word!

[cringefailvox]

i hope that valentino doesn't die in s2, and not just because i like him and want to see more of him.

i actually think val is a really good opportunity for hazbin to dig into how it defines redemption. every character in the show has a different ethical outlook on hell and the idea of redemption, but the two main ones seem to be charlie (everyone is capable of changing for the better when offered support and safety, and everyone should be provided those things regardless of what they've done) and alastor/lucifer/adam (people are naturally inclined towards wrongdoing, there are no second chances, and hell is both a punishment and cosmic justice). val is the perfect character to exemplify the struggle between these two different outlooks. CAN someone as awful and abusive as val be redeemed? and if so, what would that look like? how would we ensure his victims are safe from him while also giving him space to grow and change? if he can't be redeemed, what's the threshold for irredeemability? can we agree on what makes someone so bad there's no hope? can we quantify which sins are worse than others, and how?

(and by the way, what even gets someone into heaven, and who decides? hazbin seems like this is the main question it's beginning to focus on, so i have a lot of hope for how this one will get resolved. because at the moment, it seems like self-sacrifice is what gets you there, and that is deeply unsatisfying to me—you shouldn't have to give up everything, up to and including your life, to be considered "good enough". it's a vehemently christian idea that martyrdom is righteous and i fucking hate it.)

and if charlie's ethics are universal, she'll have to commit to redeeming people like val, otherwise she undermines her entire mission by picking and choosing who gets to have support and who doesn't. if charlie's ethics aren't universal, we could start really digging more into how her personal attachments to angel dust could present a conflict of interest in her values, like we did with vaggie; are people only worthy of her unconditional encouragement if she loves them? what are the implications of THAT?

my personal value system believes that there's no such thing as someone being irredeemable. there's only people who actively choose not to try, even after they've been provided love, support and well-intended challenges from people who want to see them grow. there needs to be space for people to be safe from their abusers and space for abusers to reform themselves and participate in society, otherwise our options become banishment or execution and i doubt that's the ethical message hazbin wants us to walk away with. val's positioning in the narrative and his close connection to angel makes him the perfect candidate to really challenge charlie's commitment to her ideals, since she doesn't already love him (like vaggie) and he isn't actively trying to be better (like angel or pentious). killing him would be unsatisfying, as well as letting everybody off the hook too easy. i want these bitches neck-deep in painful ethical dilemmas.

ultimately, i hope that hazbin goes the teshuvah route regarding sin. in judaism, teshuvah is the process of repentance for sin, but it also means "return" because the hebrew word for sin, chet, means missing the mark. sin is when we don't quite hit the target how we should have. it's not something you're born with, it's something you do, and it's something you can choose not to do. teshuvah is slow and difficult and a lifelong process, not a one-time golden ticket to heaven. i hope hazbin ends up in the same vein as this, where reforming sinners becomes more about repairing broken relationships, crafting a better society, and harm reduction instead of the ultimate goal being entry to heaven. i think that would be far more interesting and cathartic to me than anything else

[matan4il]

To the Nonnie who sent me an ask in relation to Standing Together (Tumblr is being weird and swallowed your message, but I saw it), here is the vid you linked:

-> Okay, first, a rough translation of the Hebrew comment exchange featured in the vid:

Rula: Really, Muhammad? Children died today. Women. Displaced people. Not a word about 210 Palestinians who died during a rescue operation? We already have one Yuseph Haddad.

Muhammad: Really, Rula? 210 children and women died today? Unarmed? Only children and women? And if we're dealing with civilians... Not a word from you about the fact that hostages were held in the homes of civilians, by civilians? Don't lecture me.

Rula: Oy, you've completely lost it. Shame.

-> I'm not sure Standing Together is the biggest Jewish-Arab organization in Israel. Before Oct 7, it claimed to have reached a peak of 5,000 members, which out of a population of almost 10 million people is pretty negligible. And when practically every organization in Israel has both Jews and Arabs, including the freaking Israeli parliament (the Knesset), it just feels... weird to think there's nothing bigger than that. Then again, maybe when we talk specifically about an organization claiming to be political and to be serving the idea of Jewish-Arab solidarity, there isn't one with more registered members. Maybe.

But for example, the vid mentions an Israeli Arab activist called Yuseph Haddad, who's the CEO of an organization called "Together - Vouch for each other" (it corresponds with Jewish tradition, as the Hebrew word choice specifically echoes the Jewish phrase, "Kol Yisrael arevim ze la'ze" - all of Israel vouch for each other), which I know has both Jewish and Arab volunteers, though it puts Arabs at the forefront. IDK how many volunteers it has, but Haddad is actually one of the most beloved activists in Israel, people recognize him everywhere, he gets his own impression on Israel's most popular satire shows (performed by one of the show's Arab cast members, who's also one of Israel's most loved and recognized comedians), he got the honor of lighting one of the torches at Israel's Independence Day torches ceremony (seriously one of the greatest honor here), and I've seen some of his work with the next generation of Israeli Arabs. I also know that "Together" has worked with Yad Vashem to make educational content about the Holocaust more accessible for Arabic speakers. I find it hard to believe "Together" has less volunteers than ST does, but I don't have official numbers on them. Still, it's probably wise to keep in mind that ST's numbers are self reported.

-> BTW, this is also a response to a lovely Nonnie asking me what alternatives there are to Standing Together. "Together" has the mission of better connecting Arabs to Israeli society. They don't look away from criticizing Israel when it's needed, they do talk about where the state needs to do better, but on the basic level, they do talk about loving and embracing Israel. The way Haddad explains it, the recognition hit him when he was at the age to decide whether to volunteer for an IDF service or not, that the enemies of Israel are willing to kill Israeli Arabs in order to get to Israeli Jews, while the army is defined as the Israel Defense Forces, not Jews' Defense Forces, that it protects all Israeli civilians, and from there his connection was born and grew, and he tries to pass it on to other Israeli Arabs, and uplift and empower those who already feel it. He won't tell you there aren't issues or racism in Israel, but he does seem to believe that a cornerstone in overcoming those, is to build on the sense of shared fate we have here. "Together" isn't the only organization working in this direction, there are many more, working in various ways, but I don't think there's another that's as recognized, respected and liked by general Israeli society)

-> To the Nonnie who asked me about "A Land for All," I'm not sure if I'm the right person to answer this question, because I know one of the founding members of this movement in real life. He's a very nice person, honestly. He's a religious settler, born into that society, where most people are right wing, and are seen as violent, racist and extremist. I think painting any sector of society with a wide brush gets things wrong. The man I know certainly is none of those things, and from what he says and how I know him, he hated being seen that way, he wanted to break away from that perception of settlers. At the same time, he does love the place where he was born, he doesn't want those Jewish communities uprooted, and he also recognizes that Jews do deserve a state of their own (as well as Palestinians). "A Land for All - Two states, one homeland" was born from this duality. It's the idea that there will be two states, Jewish and Palestinian, that will exist by each other, but they'll both be a part of one confederation (one homeland), which will allow open borders for everyone within this union. So you seemingly don't deprive either side of self-determination, while still allowing Jews to live in the Judea and Samaria settlements, that current two state solutions would uproot, or return to Gaza, or move into any part of Hevron they'd like to (currently, Jews are only allowed to live and to access about 3% of one of our 4 holiest cities), while giving Arabs the right to live inside Israel if they so choose, anywhere they want to.

I think it's a nice idea, from very well meaning people, who are actually really thrilled at the notion that maybe ironically, peace between Jews and Arabs will originate with the settlers, of all people. I still have questions and doubts. First, because I've noticed different members of ALFA have different takes on some practical questions. Some say the settlers will be Israeli citizens living on Palestinian soil within this one confederation, others say they would be Jews with Palestinian citizenship. Either option raises more questions. Who will protect these Jews living among Palestinians? If they're Israeli citizens, the responsibility would be on Israeli security forces, would they be allowed to operate freely on Palestinian soil? If they're Palestinian citizens, can the Palestinian forces be trusted with the security of these Jews? Past experience suggests... no. Before there was a State of Israel, Jews living among Arabs were attacked and killed simply for being Jewish. No one came to their aid. And when Israel in the 1990's helped set up the Palestinian security forces that serve the Palestinian Authority, some of the weapons and training Israel provided as part of a peace process which was giving the Palestinians self-rule for the first time ever, ended up being turned against Israeli Jews, used against us in terrorist attacks. But even the mere question itself leads to another one, because if we're back to asking "Will non-Jewish authorities protect their Jewish minority," then where is the self-determination we've fought so hard for, the right to protect ourselves, shape our own fate, instead of forever being dependent on the good will of non-Jews...?

You can surely think of similar questions about what would happen with Palestinians living on Israeli soil, what would their citizenship be, and what would happen if they use this freedom of access to attack Israeli Jews? And how about that confederation, how would it work? What would be its joint authority over Israeli and Palestinian citizens vs the autonomy of each state? And how would the power be divided between Jews and Arabs in representation within the joint ruling system, will it be equal no matter what the demographics become over time (making it unrepresentative, some might argue undemocratic) or will it make each side's power relative to its population size, turning one side in reality into a minority, and therefore vulnerable to the power of the other side?

My first reaction was to like the idea enough, that I started thinking about it in practical terms, and got to many of these questions, and I haven't gotten good enough practical answers from ALFA members, sometimes I didn't even get consistent answers (telling me this initiative has not been serious enough, to sit down and iron out all of the differences of view their members have on practical (not ideological!) matters. So yeah, I just... can't really join the movement, even though a part of me still likes this notion, which allows me, as a Jew, full access to every part of my ancestral homeland, not just... to the sections that haven't been occupied by Arab forces in 1948, and ethnically cleansed at that time (like East Jerusalem), or before (like Gaza and Hevron).

On top of that, when I look at who ALFA collaborates with, we're back to sketchy partners, many talk about Jewish-Arab solidarity, but don't really implement it in a way that's fair to Israelis and Jews, such as ST. Or another thing that made me groan is that I saw ALFA celebrate a column by Thomas Friedman which supported them, that's fair enough and natural enough, except they included in their celebration the part of his column calling for a unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state, something that's an anti-peace move in itself, and in this context, I sincerely don't get how this move would help promote this solution, if the Palestinians will get a state anyway, without agreeing to it existing as a part of such a confederation...

This is my perspective,

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[christiansinternational]

Hebrew defines gracious words as merciful, compassionate or soft-hearted words that bring healing.

[gideonnavtheninth]

FINALLY name time! Abigail name time!!!!

Once again, Pent and Quinn are 5 in Greek and Latin respectively, which we all know is the pattern. NOW, first names are fun! Abigail, meaning-wise is biblical. It shows up a couple times, as the name of the wife of Nabal and one of David's wives, and as the name of David's sister. Jewish Women's Archive describes Abigail (Nabal's wife) in this way

Abigail, the wife of Nabal of Carmel, is the only woman in the Hebrew Bible who is described as both intelligent and beautiful ... She is “of good sense and beautiful in looks,” while he is “hard and evil in his deeds” ... Alternatively, according to the written text he is just “like his heart” Later, the narrative recounts that “his heart died within him and he became like stone". Mean and inhospitable, he meets his fate, measure-for-measure, in the petrification of his hard heart. It accounts for Abigail’s motivation: why she intervenes secretly to provide a feast for David and his men without consulting her husband. In a subtle twist, she simultaneously saves her household and allies herself with David, eventually in matrimony when she is fortuitously widowed.

The things that feel noteworthy here are A. Abigail being very defined by having a husband (But, in this case, her husband sucks) B. Several mentions of the heart, which... they are the heart of the emperor! and C. She's widowed! Continuing down her story, we see some more stuff that feels of note

She further portends that God will establish a “sure house” for David, foreshadowing Nathan’s prophecy of an everlasting dynasty for the king. She ends her speech with a hint: “when the LORD has dealt well with my lord, then remember your handmaid”. David then praises her good sense and expresses gratitude that she restrained him from bloodshed, uttering an oath to counter the prior violent one

Every time I see the word "house" alarm bells start ringing. Anyway, an everlasting dynasty feels particularly familiar here. I mean, Abigail doesn't have all that much to do with Jod, but it still feels relevant to be drawing connections when I see them.

Based on her prescience, the Talmud identifies Abigail as one of the seven female prophets in the Hebrew Bible. More likely, she is keenly perceptive about the shifting tides of history.

Not anything extraordinary here, but the concept of Abigail being "keenly perceptive about the shifting tides of history" feels pretty accurate to our Abigail!

When Abigail returns home, she finds her husband drunk from feasting “like a king” and waits until the morning to tell him what she has done. His heart then strangely turns to stone and he dies ten days later, struck by “the Lord”. David, hearing that she has been widowed, sends for her. She obsequiously prostrates herself, calling David “lord” and herself “maidservant prepared to wash [his] servants’ feet”; though, ironically, she follows the messenger with five maids on donkeys in tow. She then becomes his wife

Feels like she's very defined by being people's wives. If anything, I feel like Magnus is the wife guy in TLT. But, again, we're seeing a whole lot of heart talk, which feels like it has to mean something. The whole point of this reread is rereading so I'm certain I'm missing things, but I never got the impression Abigail was all that zealous in her religion. I will say, I will be keeping an eye out for anything that really makes Abigail feel particularly Jod-sympathizing. In GTN, we don't really blink at people supporting the emperor outside of times where it really stands out, like the Eighth, but I do wanna watch out for Abigail mentioning the emperor at all. Just something to keep in mind.

Good old' Wikipedia describes her name as derived from the Hebrew word ab, "father", and the Hebrew root g-y-l, "to rejoice," Meaning it probably means "father's joy". Again, not all that sure how this relates to Abigail the character, but still gotta cover my bases.

Abigail's self-styling as a handmaid led to Abigail being a traditional term for a waiting-woman, for example as the waiting gentlewoman in Beaumont and Fletcher's The Scornful Lady, published in 1616

The aesthetic makes sense to me. Abigail is very gentlewoman in my eyes.

Nooo Magnus don't get your own post. Nooo don't make the fifth house like 4 different posts nooo Magnus

[j0kers-light]

Hey <3 What would Joker think about a reader who speaks lots of languages? Does he speak multiple as well? Would he learn some together with the reader? Or does he not really pay attention to that? Have a lovely day~

Hey hi my love!! 🖤✨

It’s a beautiful day actually and my brain is running a mile a minute to answer this. As someone who is trilingual, (and working on learning more) I find it tricky to answer this ask from Joker’s perspective. 

Because on one hand learning a new language is both daunting and fun; anyone can do it! However it does have a tendency to pinpoint origin and define you as a person. 

Joker knowing a different language (in my opinion) is too risky given his strict, “I have an untraceable past” reputation. If he starts speaking a different language, it can be traced back to his past.

So no. I don’t think Joker would bother learning a different language. He speaks English and sarcasm. Now if it were for the betterment of his Light? He might?

Joker believes that pain translates the same across all languages, so why bother trying to understand what a person is saying as they plead for mercy?

He doesn’t have the need to pick up a new language so English it is!

That all changes when he meets his Bunny who is a foreign speaker. And ohh boy, he wasn’t prepared.

Your accent, the speed in which you talk.. Joker finds it downright sexy! Everything you say has a bit of a kick to it.

He doesn’t know a word you’re saying most of the time and you use that to your advantage when you’re upset with him. 

You stop talking in English and rant in your mother tongue leaving Joker standing there like 👁️🫦👁️

Joker is a certified simp. We know this. He instantly bricks up hearing you speak, especially if you say something during sex that he can’t translate. Horn-Y to the point of no return. 🥵

He is in awe how you speak multiple different tongues in the same conversation, simply because you can. 

One minute you are cracking a joke in English, you pause to listen to someone speak (insert language) and then you reply in a third; effectively blowing J’s mind.

You are constantly translating in your head and thinking of the correct consonants and vowels to use while still engaging in conversation.

It takes a sharp mind and loads of patience that Joker greatly admires. How you do it? He’ll never understand but it’s definitely hot.

Joker finds out that you know to sign and can read Braille too by accident; what are you? A walking Rosetta Stone? At this point what language do you not know?

Imagine his disbelief when he discovers you can sing certain songs in several more languages…

Joker dubs you his Google translate and if he needs assistance, best believe he’s asking for your help. 

You turn to glare at your boyfriend in disdain. He really dragged you out of bed for this. “I don’t know Mandarin, Joker.” You say for the fourth time.

Your response isn’t what J was expecting and his wide grin slowly falls from his face. Tense seconds pass as he hides his disappointment. “Bunny… you know a loT of languages..”

“Yes, but not..” You pinch your nose with a sigh. You are not an automated translator that J assumes you to be. You don't know every language! (that would be so cool btw)

The best course of action is letting Joker's hopes and dreams down softly. “It’s a rather hard and complicated dialect to learn, J.”

“And that mumbo jumbo you sang the other day wasn’t hard?!”

You drew a blank at him cutting you off. “J, what are you talking about?”

“Uhh you sa~ng in the car jusT fine, what's stopping ya now?” He grumbled. It took you a minute to remember what he's talking about and even then, you're still confused.

“Joker. That was Hebrew. Completely different language. Omg, are you really that racist?” You ask.

The poor guy that Joker abducted will just have to wait until you and J finish arguing to confess that he's fluent in English. He's too invested in this discussion to interrupt.

So that was a self insert head canon anon sorry not sorry. 🤣🤣🤣🥴 To clear the air. 

I can speak English, Greek, and Spanish. Although I can read and comprehend Spanish better than speaking it. 😭

I began learning French and Russian when I was in school but dropped it for personal reasons. Oh! I totally forgot that my boss was teaching me Vietnamese for two years back in the day lol.

I can sing certain songs in Hebrew, Danish, Latin, Spanish, French, and Japanese. I also poorly translated a few chapters of a book in German out of desperation until the official release was published in English. 🙃 I'm a menace.

[hyperpotamianarch]

Secular jew here with a really stupid question about the tanach

What exactly constitutes the tanach? I think I've heard it's an acronym, so would the Torah be the t? what's the rest of the acronym? Which writings does it include? I'm pretty sure the talmud isn't part of it, what else isn't? Apologies if this is too basic of a question for you!

Hello! Thank you for the question!

The Torah indeed is the first part of the Tanach. Tanach is an acronym for the Hebrew words Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim. Roughly translated, those titles mean "Instructions", "Prophets" and "Writings", respectively. The Tanach, then, consists of 24 books divided into those three categories.

The Torah is the easiest one to define: it's the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, however else you choose to call them, and they are generally known to be set apart. The books in it are Bereshit (Genesis), Shemot (Exodus), Vayikra (Leviticus), B'midbar (Numbers) and Devarim (Deuteronomy). Those are the books traditionally given to Moshe directly by G-d, and mostly focus on the formation of the Israelite people and its time under his leadership. It also includes all the commandments, basically.

Nevi'im are supposedly the books written by prophets, and half the books there are specifically books of prophecy (which is more messages from G-d than necessarily predicting the future). However, the first four books - Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings - are more historical in nature, chronicling the events from Moshe's death to the destruction of the 1st Temple. The last four books - Isaiah, Jeremaiah, Ezkiel and the Twelve prophets - are primarily books of prophecies and visions, with some stories sprinked in between. Most of them are concurrent with events in the book of Kings - except for the last three of the Twelve Prophets, who have lived around the building of the 2nd Temple. The Twelve Prophets are (by this order): Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Michah, Naḥum, Ḥabakuk, Zephaniah, Ḥaggai, Zacharias and Malachi. Names are written more or less in their traditional English spelling.

Then we get to the Ketuvim, Written texts, which are... a little more vague. It's hard to say if there's a uniting theme. A couple are books of parables and songs are there, yet others are more chronicles of events, either ones that occured after the time of the book of Kings, before it or concurrently with it. A common assumption is that the difference between those and the Nevi'im is the level of prophecy in writing them - where the Nevi'im were written under direct prophecies, while the Ketuvim were only written in Ruach HaKodesh (roughly translated as "the holy spirit", but I don't want to cause any confusion with Christianity). Either way, the books in the Ketuvim are, in order: Tehilim (Psalms), Mishley (Proverbs), 'Iyov (Job), Shir HaShirim (the Song o Songs/the Songs of Solomon), Rut (or Ruth), Eichah (Lamentations), Kohellet (Ecclesiastes), Ester (or Esther), Daniel, Ezra (and Neḥemiah) and Divrey HaYamim (Chronicles).

If you count, you'll find there are 5 books in the Torah, 8 in the Nevi'im and 11 in the Ketuvim - 24 in total. Ther Twelve Prophets, known as Trei Asar (which just means twelve), are considered one book, The division of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Chronicles into two books each is relatively late and only makes sense in Ezra due to the obvious PoV shift. Which kind of reminds me, maybe a brief explanation is required as to what each of those last 11 books is.

Tehilim is a book of prayers and religious poems, traditionally written by King David (though they were probably collected long after his time). Mishley is the proverbs of king Shelomo (Solomon), some of which were definitely written long after his time (as in, it's directly stated inside the book). 'Iyov is possibly a parable, possibly a real story which serves as a background to a conversation on the problem of evil that doesn't seem to be solved within the book. The five books from Shir HaShirim to Esther are considered the Five Scrolls, but actually share very little in common: Shir HaShirim is a love song that sometimes become rather erotic, written by King Solomon. Ruth is an origin story to King David's family that occurs during the Judges period, and is about his Great-Grandmother and her conversion to Judaism (she was from Moab, which was a neighboring nation). Eichah is a book lamenting the destruction of the 1st Temple and of the Kingdom of Judea, traditionally written by Jeremiah. Kohellet is a philosophical book pondering the meaning of life - it either finds none or finds solace in faith, depending who you ask - also said to have been written by King Solomon. Esther is famously about the first organised Pogrom in recorded history - one against the Jews of the Persian empire, occuring during the Babylonian exile in Persia. Daniel is about the vision of a Jewish slave in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, who somehow succeeds to stay in a position of power after multiple switches in the government. The story of Daniel isn't half as interesting as his weird visions, though. Ezra is about the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem after the return from exile, more or less - Ezra and Neḥemiah are the major leaders of this time period. This is pretty much a chronicling book - as is the last one, appropriately called Chronicles (Divrey HaYamim). That one basically attempts to sum up everything that happened to the Jewish people throughout history until the building of the 2nd Temple.

I've already written a lot and am too tired to explain why those books were codified and others weren't, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

[whencyclopedia]

The Gospels

The New Testament contains four gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The four gospels are not biographies of Jesus, nor are they history as we define it. What each gospel attempted to do was write a theological explanation for the events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. By narrating his life, his ministry, and his death, The Gospels argued that these events should be interpreted in relation to the history of Israel.

The word 'gospel' derives from the Anglo-Saxon for 'good news', and the writers are deemed 'evangelists' from the Greek euangelistes (bringer of good news). In this context, the 'good news' is the message of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that the kingdom of God foretold by the prophets of Israel was imminent.

The gospels were produced from c. 70 CE to perhaps 100 CE. Their portraits of Jesus, who he was, and why he was here, differ in relation to both later reflections and changes in the demographics of the earliest Christian communities over time. The four gospels vary in some of the details of Jesus. The two nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are thrown together under the Christmas tree, although they differ in many ways. (Matthew has the star and the Magi; Luke has the stable and the shepherds.) However, when the gospels agree on details, this does not indicate four different sources. Mark, being first, was used and edited by the other three.

Authorship

The original texts of the gospels had existed for about a hundred years with no names. The Church Fathers in the 2nd century CE assigned the names; none of the writers signed their work. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. One exception is Luke, who says he interviewed witnesses but gives no further details. In their attempt to provide backgrounds for the writers the Church Fathers tried to align them as close to the original circle of Jesus as possible. They were also aware of a fundamental problem; the first disciples of Jesus were fishermen from Galilee who could not read and write the level of Greek in these documents.

In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke wrote that Peter had a disciple named John Mark who accompanied Peter in his travels. By the 2nd century CE, the legend that Peter had died in Rome under Roman emperor Nero (r. 54-68 CE) emerged and so the Church Fathers claimed Peter dictated this gospel to Mark in Rome. In Mark and Luke, when Jesus called the tax-collector to follow him, that individual is named Levi. In Matthew’s gospel, he is named Matthew. The Church Fathers identified this writer by this clue, thus the name. It was believed that there had been an earlier form of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew. This gave it more credible historical roots and so they placed it first in the New Testament.

The Church Fathers knew that the third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same individual, but there was no Luke in the list of disciples. However, the second half of Acts relates the missionary journeys of Paul. In one of Paul’s letters, he mentioned a traveling companion named Luke. For the Fathers, this was eyewitness testimony to the missions. The fourth gospel, John consistently refers to a character by the name of "the beloved disciple". The Church Fathers knew of someone named John the Elder in Ephesus who was supposedly an original disciple and so assigned this gospel to him and claimed that he was John, the brother of James (the sons of Zebedee).

Continue reading...

[transmascpetewentz]

Welcome to my blog! 🤍💙🤍

Hello everyone, I'm sure you already know me, but for the new people: I'm Lou/Eliyahu, I'm a bigender (in a Jewish sense) fem gay trans man, I'm white/slavic, and I'm converting to Judaism. There isn't really a theme to my blog, I just find sideblogs too hard to keep track of so I keep everything in one spot. New followers should be warned that they will see a lot of random shit on their dash.

Under the cut you'll find my tag filtering system and more.

To all the lurkers on my page, kiss the meowzuzah on your way in!

(all credit goes to @the-catboy-minyan)

Longer About Me

I'm converting to Judaism and am having my beit din soon (B''H), so that is primarily what I post about. I post a lot of jokes about tanakh/talmud because that's what I'm currently into studying. I am still active on shabbos bc I am not shomer shabbos.

I am finally good enough at Hebrew to say that I know it. I can read and write, but speaking and listening is hard.

Tag Filtering

So, I'm not very good at tagging, but one that I use pretty frequently is #ask to tag and it's a catch-all for anything that you might want to proceed with caution in. I also use #long post and #arguing a lot, for long posts and arguing respectively. Other than that, I'll tag most things about a certain bigotry with #[bigotry], including examples of that bigotry. If you're affected by said bigotry, you can and should filter the tag for your mental health!

I recommend that you filter out certain words entirely instead of just tags if you are triggered by a subject, since I oftentimes forget to tag posts with adequate warning tags. I don't like to tag things a lot, so if you are triggered by things I post about a lot and word filtering doesn't work for you, feel free to unfollow.

Although this is not an ED blog, I have an eating disorder and I post about it under the tag #ed talk. If you are uncomfortable with hearing that kind of discussion, block the tag and don't engage with the posts. If you are the kind of person who thinks people with eating disorders should have to censor themselves online for the comfort of others, do yourself a favor and don't follow me at all.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are you a Zionist?

It depends on how we're defining Zionism. If we're defining Zionism as "support of the modern state of Israel," I am a post-Zionist because the state exists. If we're defining Zionism as "the right of Jews as a native people to live and have self-determination in their native land," (which is also my personal definition), I am a proud Zionist. If Zionism means "support for the murder of innocent Palestinian people," then I am anti-Zionist, but that is a definition that divorces Zionism from its historical context.

Can you reblog my donation post?

Probably not, unless we already know each other. Due to the amount of donation scams that have popped up on tumblr recently, I don't feel safe giving money to random people that ask.

[whencartoonsruletheworld]

Okay so since there’s soooo much fucking transphobia rampant, here’s a post for those of you who either are Christian and/or surrounded by Christian queerphobes. Here’s a list of rebuttals to when they start talking about how being trans is ungodly.

Most of these rebuttals are religious as that is the base they will be arguing from; however I did include  bit of a science to make their heads spin.

“Genesis also says that God made morning and evening. Are morning and evening strictly binary? Is there nothing inbetween? Can you define 'morning'? How about the binary of darkness and light?”

“So if we're born the gender we are, what are intersex people?” [when they inevitably say there's just "so few of them"] “There are more intersex people than there are redheads. 1.7% of the population are Intersex, while roughly 1.5% are redheads. Does that mean that redheads do not 'count' when discussing hair color?”

[to “God doesn't make mistakes”] “Yes, of course. They just do impossible things. After all, if God could put a baby into a virgin, or could bring life to the dead, why could they not put a boy's soul into a girl's body, or vice versa?”

Feel free to also say “God literally made such a mistake with all humanity that they flooded the planet.”

This line is from a Jewish source, Something That May Shock and Discredit You by Daniel Mallory Ortberg: “As my friend Julian puts it, only half winkingly: 'God blessed me by making me transsexual for the same reason God made wheat but not bread and fruit but not wine, so that humanity might share in the act of creation.'”

Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.“

If they're using the Deuteronomy verse (22:5, about not crossdressing or w/e), know that line is mistranslated. Quoting https://hoperemainsonline.com/index.php/transgender/, “A more literal translation from Hebrew reads 'The weapon of a warrior shall not be on a woman, nor shall a warrior put on the robe of a woman, for all who do these things are a hateful thing to the LORD thy God.' The word “robe” is translated from the Hebrew word simlah, which was a garment worn by both sexes. Clearly, this cannot be referring to cross-dressing. What could it be referring to then? A much more likely answer to that question is that it is about ritual purity and the mixing of blood. Both warrior’s swords and women’s garments would get blood on them, one from battle and the other from menstruation. To have a man wear the robe of a woman, or vice versa, would mix blood, which was considered an abomination under the law.”

Similar mistranslations result in the homophobic verses they spew as well. just browse through hoperemains for some inspo

This last one is long, but it talks about how all humans, including women, were created in God's image; therefore, God is both male and female. If it's wrong for humans to be, why is God enby themself? 

From The Africana Bible, edited by Hugh R Page Jr:

“The term occasionally translated as 'human beings' in the NRSV and generally as "man" in most other English versions is  'adam or ha'adam. Now this is clearly not a personal name (that is, Adam) as the KJV ill-advisedly begins to indicate at about Gen. 2:19. A better translation of this term, however, would be “the earthling” since the term is derived from the term ‘adamah, meaning “land” or “earth.” Such a translation clarifies better than “man” or even “human being” that the original intent of the author is to emphasize that God made “earthlings” as a whole, not just males, in God’s image[...]”

[...]“Such a translation takes into consideration that the term ‘adam is meant to function as a collective term referring to both the male and the female. Thus, we should note that ‘adam here is not a name or an ascription of gender but a collective term for “earthlings” in general; this is emphasized by the author’s choice of the plural pronoun ‘otham, and the use of the plural verbs veyirddu and urdu, meaning in 1:26 and 1:28, 'let THEM have dominion,' further reiterates the inclusive nature of the term ‘adam. [...] In Genesis 1 and 2, both genders were created with equal expressions of God’s image, equal authority over the earth, and equal value as human beings.”