#should I talk to my Rabbi about it?

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Honestly, a very healing thing for my relationship with g-d is to do things out of love rather than fear, which might be an unpopular opinion. When I was in the xtian church, the biggest thing was to Fear g-d because He Will send you to hell in a hand basket. He will send you to eternal damnation, a hell where you can look up and see heaven just out of reach (this was a genuine thing I was told. You can imagine why my atheist phase was a phase of rebelling against that, not in a disbelief, per se, of g-d). This also doesn't help because my history of abuse was based on primal fear, which... isn't conducive to fear models of behavior.

I'm sure the relationship I have with g-d might be seen in a negative light because you're supposed to fear g-d, but I can't separate fear of g-d from the genuinely toxic do-things-out-of-fear-of-eternal-damnation thing.

I do everything - pray, go to shul, follow kosher (as best I can) - because I love g-d. I have no fear of Him because I am secure in my relationship with Him now. What I appreciate about judaism is that there is emphasis on love, where that wasn't the expectation in church.

[vibingforjudaism]

I need a therapist who I can argue with and who will give me jewish advice ....a rabbi. I need a rabbi

[nonbinary-vents]

I want to start exploring Jewish masculinity but it still feels like such a scary topic. When I was young my family was kind of disconnected to Judaism. Not assimilated or non practising, but in the sense that having generations not having to be in the diaspora makes Judaism something you don’t really have to actively try to practise because it’s all around you. So, already I feel like I’m missing a lot of stuff… and then you have all the trans stuff. I don’t know how it works to be masculine or feminine or androgynous or neutral or anything in Judaism— the most I know is the six/eight sexes, but that’s less cultural and more biological anyway. I want to fill those roles, to be masculine and androgynous and whatever, in a Jewish way so, so much, but I just have no idea where to even start

[jesterguy]

I have so many posts in drafts about Palestine and I still just don't even know what to say or where to start

[dolokhoded]

there's something incredibly funny about the dynamic between me, fandomed your bible made them queers but has no actual extreme opinions about christianity because i think it's all made up and you can believe in whatever pleases you, and my best friend, somewhat orthodox (with a natural hatred for the church any actual christian should have), very lowkey and respectful towards everything, frowns at me when i slander the apostle john, but straight up believes with his whole chest paul was the antichrist and will argue with your 80 year old christian grandmother about it

[animazed]

then I end up feeling bad because she’ll be like ‘you ok? Good to go by yourself?’ and I’m like shit, she really is nice. She doesn’t deserve so much anger. So then I leave with a ‘make good decisions!’ which isn’t said in any passive aggressive way but sounds like that after the fact. idk. It was more for like ‘get to school and have a productive day’

[yankeeclytemnestra]

you ever just see a something that makes you realize you have an opinion you didn't think you needed to have?

anyways if you're lgbt+ but you consciously don't act on it because you think it's a sin and you dislike lgbt-affirming churches you shouldn't call yourself queer

[spacelazarwolf]

here is the reality. whether you like it or not, a large chunk of the global jewish population identifies as zionist, as in they believe that israel should exist in some capacity (regardless of their feelings about the current government). a lot of numbers have been thrown around that i don’t necessarily think are accurate, but it is very safe to say that particularly those who are involved in jewish community organizations and/or are more observant tend to identify as zionist. there are a lot of reasons for this that would take an entire doctoral dissertation to cover. if i wanted to cut myself off from every single jewish zionist or every single jew or jewish organization that believes israel should exist or simply has even one jewish zionist friend or one jewish zionist in attendance, i would have to completely isolate myself from the jewish community, and i am simply not going to do that.

for shavuot, we stayed up until past 3am having difficult conversations about israel and zionism and other rifts in the jewish community and how to talk about them without the inevitable defensiveness that always comes up, how to disconnect the political aspects of zionism from jewish identity and how to have difficult conversations with people who disagree with us without leaving the table. we talked about it through the lens of a story in the talmud about rabbi yohanan and reish lakish, a story that ends in tragedy, a story that is representative of where the community is headed if we aren’t able to start having these conversations.

so when gentiles show up and demand i abandon my community because it’s sinful politically incorrect to associate with sinners people with slightly different political opinions, it pisses me the fuck off. because y’all are constantly going on and on abt jews needing to “unlearn zionism” but then when non zionist jews refuse to just walk away from our people and decide instead to do the difficult work of starting and maintaining important conversations within our community, we get called zionists or accused of “associating with zionists” and therefore zionist by default.

so what do you want? do you want there to be less jewish zionists? because the only way that’s going to happen is if difficult conversations are allowed to happen, and those difficult conversations won’t be able to happen if you insist that all jews who aren’t zionist refuse to associate with the vast majority of our people. or are you simply looking to isolate jews with different political opinions than you because you don’t want to take the time to understand why so many jews identify as zionist. i know because i have had hours upon hours of conversations with the people in my community, and my understanding of their reasoning and motivation has made it easier to have conversations about zionism.

so it’s fucked because. y’all want there to be less jewish zionists. the only way for that to happen is to talk to them and understand them. but associating with them or trying to understand why they identify that way makes you a zionist. and therefore you should also not be associated with. but there should be less jewish zionists. so it sounds to me like y’all are just expecting people to change their minds because. what? because you said so? that is not realistic in the slightest!

anyway this post is not meticulously crafted it’s literally just me venting abt this shit but i’m just sick and tired of goyim who are not part of these difficult conversations deciding that they know better how to deal with jewish zionists (who they will not associate with) than jewish non zionists who are actually trying to have the difficult conversations with their community.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Bro no one hates jews for ethnicity, news are hated for faith.

If you are an atheist "jew", no one gives a shit about you.

Stop pretending to be a victim and trying to appropriate antisemitic struggles.

I'll address these point by point.

Jewish readers, please share your thoughts!

You wrote: "No one hates Jews for ethnicity, [J]ews are hated for faith."

"Hitler...defined the Jews as a race and not a religious community, characterized the effect of a Jewish presence as a “race-tuberculosis of the peoples,” and identified the initial goal of a German government to be discriminatory legislation against Jews."

[Source]

More here

As David Baddiel put it, "I'm an atheist, but that would get me no free passes out of Auschwitz."

The Jews are a people. Judaism is the traditional religion of that people. A Jew who does not engage with that religion does not cease to be a Jew by Jewish definitions OR by antisemitic definitions.

You wrote: "If you are an atheist Jew, nobody gives a shit about you."

First, see above.

Second, you're incorrectly assuming that a Jewish atheist is not engaged with Judaism.

Here's the thing:

Judaism isn't necessarily theistic.

Let's set aside the explicitly non-theistic movement of Humanistic Judaism for a moment (huge topic for another time) and just talk briefly about theism in Judaism.

Most kinds of Judaism, while certainly encouraging faith, do not require it. There are no thought crimes in Judaism, no crucibles of faith, and no requirements that one announce or perform proof of belief for witnesses. Those things are often parts of Christianity and Islam, but in Judaism...not so much.

In Jewish thought, it is not what you believe about metaphysics which lifts you up, ennobles you, improves you, or makes the world a better place. In Judaism, you pursue those things by how you behave.

Sola fide is a Christian concept which Judaism does not share. Judaism is a profoundly existential religion with ethics which are overwhelmingly humanist.

I was raised in Reform and Conservative congregations...and non-theistic/atheistic/humanistic views were very common there.

When I was studying to become Bar Mitzvah, our congregation's Rabbi made crystal clear to me that there was no contradiction between my identity as a Jew and my inability to swallow the idea of an anthropomorphic, sapient, interventionist God who cared at all about petitionary prayer. He felt that wrestling with God was a very Jewish thing to do. He introduced me to Maimonides' apophatic theology. Decades later, I'm still grateful.

Many Jews pray, I believe, not to be heard by God, but so they can hear their own hearts and minds. This is why kavanah is important and why I disliked (and still dislike) prayer-by-rote and rituals performed for the sake of ritual. It's more mindfulness meditation than petitionary prayer.

There's a famous Hasidic story, recorded by philosopher Martin Buber in his "Tales of the Hasidim," about how Judaism views atheism:

The Master teaches that God created everything the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks "What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?"

The Master responds "God created atheists teach us the most important lesson of them all- the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in Goda at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say 'I will help you."

You wrote: "Stop pretending to be a victim and trying to appropriate antisemtic struggles."

I invite other Jews to advise if I have appropriated anything which is not mine.

Your opinion, though? Your view, as a non-Jew, about what is or isn't Jewish? On what is or is not mine in my heritage? Your claim, framed by your obvious and absolute ignorance of my life, my family's history, Jewish history, Jewish theology, and Jewish philosophy, that I have not experienced antisemitism and am "appropriating?"

I don't have a single fuck to give about any of that, and neither does any other Jew

Still, thank you for the writing prompt. It helps to crystalize my own thinking and provides an opportunity to educate.

[ofpd]

1st century roman siege of jerusalem dashboard simulator

🐮 barkamtza

why does this shit always happen to me

#oh my goddd the ONE time it seems like people actually wanna hang out with me. #turns out they meant to invite kamtza instead #everyone hates me and i was SO fucking nice i offered to pay for the party #god i'm so pathetic. kms kms kms #they're gonna pay for this i swear #delete later

0 notes

📜 zekharya-ben-avkolas

Ok so obv it's not ok to sacrifice a blemished calf but the blemish is just on the eyelid? So maybe it's ok? But also and i don't want people to start going around thinking that it's ok to sacrifice blemished animals. But the thing is that if i don't bar Kamtza will tell the Romans we insulted them and that will be bad probably. And like no one likes bar Kamtza anyway will people really miss him..... but ugh neither of these seem like good things to do i don't feel like it's my place to make a decision about this :/

32 notes

🏛 vespasian reblogged

🏺neronero

off to war wish me luck! 🇲🇪🏹

🏺neronero

nvm guys. ✡️✡️

🏛 vespasian

my turn lol

53 notes

🧑🏽‍🦳 not-an-airport reblogged

🧑🏽‍🦳 not-an-airport

Hey everyone! These are difficult times, and some friends and I have put together some mutual aid resources for our community to have access to wheat, barley, wine, salt, oil, and wood! More info below the cut. Take care of yourselves! 🫶

Read more

🧑🏽‍🦳 not-an-airport

fuck

7,235 notes

⚔️ biryonei-yerushalayim

anonymous asked:

Hey, I'm trying to ask this in good faith, and I hope you can take it that way. how can you possibly defend burning our grain stores. I understand that you want to radicalize more people but you're taking things too far. Jerusalem's blood is on your hands.

anon, what you need to understand is that the blame for the carnage in jerusalem lies primarily in the hands of the roman invaders and secondarily in the hands of the rabbis for refusing to resist. would you have told the hashmonaim not to resist their oppressors by any means necessary? just because this is getting inconvenient for you doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it. it's frankly offensive that you'd imply that we, the defenders of jerusalem, should incur any blame for her current state.

#biryonim.answer #grain storage discourse

231 notes

🛡 goel-yisrael

did anyone else see the "zealot blocklist" going around lmaooo

#how do these liberals expect anyone to take them seriously #do they not have anything better to do.

7 notes

📚 stammaim reblogged

stopbeingpoor-deactivated3830102

ughh why is my servant so incompetent! i deserve the best flour why doesn't he get it...

stopbeingpoor

ykw i'll go get some myself. i'm desperate at this point i gotta do something

stopbeingpoor

EWWWW update: i stepped in something NASTY. this is why i don't fucking go out oh my god im gonna die

stopbeingpoor

gonna throw my gold & silver away for the good of the peasants or whatever it's not like it's any use to me when im literally dying -_-

📚 stammaim

lmao look at this it's exactly what yehezkel was talking about! ur gold won't save you!

#yehezkel #marta b. baitos

162 notes

🕎 yalla-hapoel

🌿 amicus-iudaeorum asked:

Hey, love your posts! They're very informative about the Jewish perspective on this war. I'm just wondering whether you condemn the actions of the zealots? I don't really feel comfortable following someone who supports that.

are you fr.

#if youre seriously concerned about this idt this is the blog for you i fear

28 notes

🛡 goel-yisrael reblogged

📖 ben-zakkai

⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️ lol

🛡 goel-yisrael

? what does this mean

🗡 abbasikkara

dw about it bestie

🛡 goel-yisrael

ok 💗 yay 💗

6 notes

👩🏽‍🌾 discoursedumpblog

I've compiled a list of some of the most rabid zealots on this website. Remember, don't engage, just block and move on.

Read more

152 notes

🏛 vespasian reblogged

🏛 vespasian

some jew got an audience with me & called me king (im literally not lol thats so disrespectful to the actual king + if i was king then he shouldve met w me much earlier??), i think i should kill him

🏛 vespasian

AND my shoe is being so annoying. horrible day 👎

📖 ben-zakkai

omg just came across this old post

🏛 vespasian

OMG sorry i don't mean it anymore 🙏

14 notes

🫒 a-simple-yid

yirmiyahu tzadak...

#not to pretentiously quote tanakh but literally like. #hashiveinu hashem eilekha venashuva hadeish yameinu kekedem.

3 notes

[mightyostanes]

Why Jews Aren't "Trying to Trick G-d"

(Note only secondary sources are cited in the bibliography)

For my second post I had originally planned on writing something more fun but unfortunately, I feel the need to write this. Lately I’ve seen quite a few people on twitter saying that the way Jews interpret Halakah is that Jews are trying to trick G-d. While this is obviously a bad faith argument designed to be shitty, I still think this subject should be explained in greater detail. Mostly because I think there’s a fundamental disconnect in the way people imagine religions should interact with their deity and how Judaism has historically interacted with G-d. Furthermore, due to the Haskalah and Counter Haskalah I feel that a lot of these ideas have been lost to a lot of Jews in the English-speaking world. Replaced by Platonism that has much more in common with Philo and Maimonides then it does with anything the sages actually wrote or believed. Or to put it in much franker terms the toilet demon Rabba Bar Rav Huna mentioned in Gittin70:A6 probably wasn’t a metaphor. Instead, it seems incredibly likely that both he and Rabbi Tanhum Bar Tanilai believed in a literal Sheyd that lived in literal toilets no matter how embarrassing that sounds. 

    The reason this bizarre tangent is important is because if you actually look at the biblical, rabbinic, medieval, kabbalistic, and hasidic literature it utterly destroys the idea that the relationship of the Jew to G-d is of one sided kowtowing submission. Granted, it’s quite easy to interpret it that way but that’s mostly due to conditioning in terms of what people think a theistic religion should be about rather than any wiggle room in the texts themselves. In fact, I’d wager most arguments against this have more to do with people’s idea of the Tanakh than the Tanakh itself. 

      The biggest reason for this misunderstanding in my opinion is that very few people actually know what a covenant is let alone its context. To illustrate my point, I’d like you to think back on the last time you made a covenant with someone or something. Assuming you aren’t a ceremonial magician the answer to the question just posed is probably never. In the modern world covenant has become almost solely associated with the Bible and has almost no context. Especially because the idea of the ‘New Covenant’ talked about in the works of Paul the Apostle has very little to do with what covenants historically were. Rather than statements of blind faith, covenants in the Ancient Near East were more analogous to contracts and treaties. There are even some scholars who think that the covenantal theology in Deuteronomy may be based on Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. (1)

    In these treaties a bigger state or kingdom would make a treaty for a smaller kingdom to accept fealty to them. (1) In these treaties, at least in paper, rather than being a slave the ruler of the smaller nation was supposed to be a junior partner. Said vassals would also continue to be junior partners to the larger power if they held up the obligations given to them by the treaty. (1) Similarly, just as the smaller party holds obligations to the larger party the larger party also holds obligations to the smaller party. Including ostensibly having to listen to complaints or suggestions the smaller party made. 

   In the Tanakh or Five Books of Moses, there are exactly three covenants mentioned that occurred between G-d and humans. These three aforementioned covenants are the covenant with Noah and his descendants once the Ark lands, (Gen 8:20-9:13), The covenant for Abraham’s descendants where an unknown light phenomenon signifying G-d passes through Abraham’s sacrifice (Gen: 15), and the famous covenant between G-d and the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-24). Shortly after the establishment of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants G-d or an emissary of G-d appears and holds a banquet with the covenant members (Gen 18:1-10, Exodus 24:9-18). In the Ancient Near Eastern context that these texts were written in, banquets and feasts thrown by a king or senior covenant partner were incredibly important tools for control or consolidation. In both the Neo-Assyrian Empire and in the kingdom of Mari not only eating with the king but being at the table with him showed that you were considered as part of the king’s metaphorical family (2). These constructed family hierarchies would be clearly delineated by how close one sat to the king and how one sat, with the people right next to the king being seen as close immediate family members analogous to sons or younger brothers. In the two previously mentioned covenants the Elders of Israel and Abraham’s family sans Lot were sitting with G-d or his emissary suggesting an incredibly close relationship instead of merely that of master and servant. Especially as the angels or heavenly host were not seated ahead of the human participants at the metaphorical dinner table. 

          This idea of man as junior partner and consultant is also seen in the way that humans can critique, give advice to, or argue with G-d and G-d takes their words into consideration. A famous example of this post covenant is Abraham giving G-d suggestions on what to do with Sodom and Gomorrah and G-d accepting his input (Gen 18). An even more extreme example is in Exodus 32 when Moses actually argues with G-d and seemingly wins the argument thus saving the lives of the Hebrews. Similarly, complaints were by no means unknown by the rulers of vassal states to their overlords. The famous Amarna letters addressed by Egyptian allies and vassals to Pharaoh Akhenaten are filled with complaints and requests, with a few even being acknowledged (3). Considering that Pharaoh’s considered themselves living gods this just adds more background to the precedent of complaining towards, making suggestions to, or arguing with the divine.

    Beyond the kinship of all the community of Israel, and not just a singular son, with G-d there are also many notions that have to be cleared up in regard to humankind’s place in creation. A famous Midrash Tanhuma Tarzia 5 has a Roman Consul asking Rabbi Akiba why Jews circumcise male children when G-d has them born uncircumcised. In response Rabbi Akiba shows the consul grain, created by G-d and bread which is that same grain altered by man. Rabbi Akiba then asks the consul which one is better, before giving the obvious answer that most people prefer bread. This little story besides giving a philosophical explanation for circumcision also gives a good summary of the main ethos of Rabbinic Judaism. That G-d made the world unfinished so that mankind in general and Jews in particular could finish it. To establish the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than merely waiting for it. The translation of ‘Tikkun Olam’ as repairing the world was meant to be understood literally and not just as a metaphor for social justice.

    Lastly and perhaps most shocking to an Abrahamic Gentile reader, the G-d of Judaism was not traditionally portrayed as unchanging or infallible. The idea only gained traction in rabbinic Judaism after Maimonides inserted it into his theology after borrowing it from Aristotelian, Islamic, and Christian ideas in the 12th century. Historically the G-d of Judaism has been shown to change their mind, and according to Moshe Idel is even affected by theurgy (4). As evidenced by many stories in the Torah where G-d explicitly changes their mind on what they want to do. The mutability of G-d’s mind in terms of human prayer and action carries over to the realm of Halakhic interpretation assuming the other party has a good point. The most famous example of this rabbinical overturning G-d’s decree is in Baba Metzia 59B where Three Rabbis tell G-d that G-d and Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation of a ruling regarding an oven is invalid. They achieve this by citing Deuteronomy 30:12, and Exodus 30:2 stating that the Law is not in heaven and is for the majority to decide its correct meaning. Instead of smiting the group of Rabbis G-d simply laughs stating that ‘My children have beaten me’. Indeed, the Great Maggid even goes as far as to say that G-d, like a parent teaching their child Torah, actually prefers a novel interpretation instead of just parroting the interpretation given by the parent (5).

           In Pauline Christianity Deuteronomy 30:12 which states, “The Law is not in Heaven” has been taken to mean that Halakah isn’t binding in the kingdom of heaven. However, the mainstream rabbinic interpretation means that only living humans can truly follow the Torah and perform Mitzvot to their fullest extent. In the Talmud in Shabbat 88B there is one of many Moses vs angels battles found throughout Jewish literature regarding whether humans should receive the Torah. Just like all of the other stories with this mytheme, Moses obviously wins this battle and takes the Torah to Israel. What makes this story different is that rather than using theurgy to bind the angels or just beating the tar out of them, Moses defeats them with a well-reasoned argument. I’ll let the passage I copied from Sefaria speak for itself.

     Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, the Torah that You are giving me, what is written in it? God said to him: “I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of Egypt from the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Moses said to the angels: Did you descend to Egypt? Were you enslaved to Pharaoh? Why should the Torah be yours? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Moses said to the angels: Do you dwell among the nations who worship idols that you require this special warning? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). Moses asked the angels: Do you perform labor that you require rest from it? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? ���Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7), meaning that it is prohibited to swear falsely. Moses asked the angels: Do you conduct business with one another that may lead you to swear falsely? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). Moses asked the angels: Do you have a father or a mother that would render the commandment to honor them relevant to you? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13) Moses asked the angels: Is there jealousy among you, or is there an evil inclination within you that would render these commandments relevant?

-Shabbat 88B (Babylonian Talmud)

       The Mitzvot, something occasionally seen as higher and holier than the immanent aspect of G-d (6) were meant to be performed solely by humans. Because just like the angels, G-d lacks many of these physical imperfections that give many of the Mitzvot any real weight. Therefore, as the ones who do the most mitzvot, how we interpret and follow them is fundamentally up to us.

    Admittedly I could go on and on about the theoretical frameworks behind the ideas. Such as the status of the Torah vis a vis the status of G-d, or the tradition of prayer as legal battle with the divine realm but that’d be a whole other bag of cats. One that’d probably take 20 pages to accurately give my thoughts, thoughts that would be at best heretical to at least a fair number of Jews. So instead let us end this here, there is no way for Jews to cheat Halakhah because it fundamentally belongs to the Jews. It is our burden that we have to bear and our most cherished treasure. Even if it did indeed come from G-d, like any gift the receiver usually is the actual owner and the one who decides what to do with it.

Citation List for non primary sources

Koller, Aaron. “Deuteronomy and Hittite Treaties.” Bible Interpretations , September 2014. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/09/kol388003. 

Milano, Lucio. “Naptan Ḫudûtu Aškun". Practice and Ideology of Neo-Assyrian Banquets.” Thesis, Storia Antica e Arceologico Ciclo , 2013.Section 3. Eating With The King: The Earthly Banquet. PG 60-80

Nutter, Nick. “How the Great Kings Managed Their Vassal States during the Bronze Age.” nuttersworld.com, August 15, 2024. https://nuttersworld.com/civilisations-that-collapsed/managing-vassal-states/. 

 Idel, Moshe. Middot: On the emergence of Kabbalistic Theosophies. Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 2021. 

Idel, Moshe. “The Son of God as a Righteous in Hasidism .” Chapter. In Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, 531–85. New York, NY: Continuum , n.d. 

6. Idel, Moshe. “The World Absorbing Text.” Chapter. In Absorbing Perfections Kabbalah and Interpretation, 26–45. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press, 2002

[hyperpotamianarch]

Hello. Today, I'd like to make some random anecdotes about Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra - poet, commentator, linguist, mathmatician, probably not too bad at chess and cursed to be poor for the entirety of his life.

After a cursory look at his wikipedia page, I must admit I didn't really know much about his life: only that he was born and raised in Spain, went travelling, had terrible luck with everything, wrote his commentaries on the Torah for money (which I think didn't help with the "cursed to be poor" thing), befriended Rabbenu Tam in France, possibly married the daughter of Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi and promptly died... somewhere... oh, and also wrote lots of poetry in the middle.

Historically speaking, he lived at the end of the Golden Age of Judaism in Spain, around the 11th-12th centuries CE. This puts him right after Rashi - which allows him to snark at everything he thinks Rashi was wrong about, but before Rambam - which means he doesn't get to snark at everything Rambam got wrong. His commentary on the Torah leans a little towards the linguistic side, though he has a couple of other things going on as well, like roasting people he disagrees with (Ben Zuta is the only friend a bull has, anyone?) and dancing around verses he thinks were added later to the Torah, like every time it says "to this very day".

He also wrote one of the first math books in Hebrew - Sefer HaMispar, he wrote a poem about chess, one about how whatever he'll work at he won't get enough money. And generally, he wrote poems. Quite a lot.

I suppose at this point I should mention something: Hebrew linguists were, at the middle ages, predominantly Sepharadi. I mean, sure, there could be a non-Jewish Hebrew linguist, but for some reason I don't hear much about those. And there probably were Ashkenazi linguists, but there weren't many of them. Rashi does deal with linguistics - but half the time he does, it's using the books of two famous Sepharadi linguists. The Sepharadim, living in Muslim lands as they were, simply had a better background with learning Hebrew, since they were surrounded by speakers of a closely related language - Arabic. And Ibn Ezra's deep understanding of Hebrew led to him loving linguistic riddles, which I can never figure out - and I was reading an eddition with footnotes! Though maybe I didn't make enough effort or something.

But no, the reason I wanted to talk about Ibn Ezra was the impossible standards for poetry, as set by Sepharadi poets. You see, Jews were always influenced by their surroundings, in multiple facets. and poetry is definitely one of them. So, the influence from Arab poets includes strict rules for rhythm and - and this is what I actually wanted to talk about - rhyming.

The rythm thing is bad enough. Only once in my life have I tried keeping up with that. It was very, very hard. It's probably because I'm not used to this, but no song I write can keep a consistent rhythm and meter, and that's without trying to apply the standard Sepharadic rules. So trying to have such a strict meter... didn't work well for me. I guess I'm the frenchman from

וּמִי הֵבִיא לְצָרְפַתִּי בְּבֵית שִׁיר,

וְעָבַר זָר מְקוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וְר��מָס;

וְלוּ שִׁיר יַעֲקֹב יִמְתַּק כְּמוֹ מָן,

אֲנִי שֶׁמֶשׁ, וְחַם שִׁמְשִׁי וְנָמָס.

which was actually written about Rabenu Tam, but I'm a distant relative of his so this might still be applicable. Besides, as far as you know my name is Ya'akov, just like Rabenu Tam! (Sorry for not providing a translation, the gist is "how dare a frenchman trample all over poetry?!")

But rhymes. Oh, the Ibn Ezraic rhyming standards.

According to Ibn Ezra, one must always rhyme with the entire syllable. So no, just the last sound isn't enough. In Ibn Ezra's book, rhyme and dime don't actually rhyme - though I don't think he'd care about English at all. For the Ibn Ezra, shor and ḥamor can't be rhymed with each other; shor can rhyme with Mishor, and ḥamor can rhyme with har hamor, but you can't rhyme any other pair of those with each other. And I can't stay up to this challenge. It's nearly always impossible for me to find proper words to rhyme even without the extra demand for the rhyme to be the entire syllable. With English I don't think I even bothered or ever will. You have too many weird syllables for me. But with Hebrew... I do try with Hebrew, really. But I can't keep this up. And the most frustrating thing? It doesn't appear other Ashkenazi writers had this problem.

Now we get to the interesting part. I have been trying lately a new possible format for my very-anticipated-and-definitely-not-only-I-want-it Jewsade fanfic: introduction, preface and Haskamot to books. I just really enjoy reading prefaces for books, and one of my recent favourite pieces of writing is the conclusion piece of the Vilna edition of the Babylonian Talmud. If you're interested - it can be found in most editions of the Talmud at the very end of Masechet Nidah. The piece describes the trouble they went through to publish this edition of the Talmud and it's very interesting. Another favourite piece of mine is the preface of the Levush, a slightly obscure Halachic book from the time of the Shulchan Aruch. If you've ever seen me talk about the race to Halacha - this is my source for that, because the poor author was upstaged about three to four times by other people doing exactly what he planned on doing. I highly recommend this piece as well, though I don't know how easy it is to find. And the Levush - Rabbi Mordechai Yeffe - is a nice Ashkenazi guy. So he must be more lenient with his rhymes, right?

Well, I guess I didn't establish that part. Yes, the preface to the Levush starts with a poem. It's fun. It's great. It's also up to the Ibn Ezraic standard, while my attempt to write an equivalent is... not.

Huh. This post is oddly rambly. Ah well, maybe someone will like it. Anyway, the preface portion that really takes the cake is actually one from a fairly recent obscure book - like, this one was written barely a century ago. I only found it because one of my favourite singers, Aharon Razel, made a song out of it, but the song doesn't really capture the hilarity of the piece. Do ask me if you want to hear more, this one's great.

Signing off with a "darn you, Ibn Ezra! Why must you set such high standards!"

[thecrazyalchemist]

I've recently seen a post on Tumblr that just, 'broke' something in me (for a lack of a better term).

So I just want to vent about it and another thing that's been bothering me.

(Disclaimer: this is a vent post. I am not an expert in the topics discussed. What I say is knowledge that I have learned from all kinds of places (school, history classes, researching for history projects, reading first hand written material from archives, and other places) and I don't have much the energy to compile everything source into a list (if I can even remember them). However, if you want to add, argue against, or argue in favor of something said here, correct me, you're welcome! Although, please act civil and cite your sources please. (I know I didn't and I'm sorry, but also please remember this is a vent post.) so anyways, here we start)

So, first of all:

Let's talk about Zionism. What does it mean?

To me, it seems that a lot of people think Zionism is something along the lines of 'racist bloodthirsty monstrous baby murderer and cold blooded killer and a rapist pedophile' since I keep seeing the word 'Zionist' in DNI lists next to 'nazis', 'pedophiles', 'minor attracted people', and other stuff like that.

I would love to hear what you think its definition is and I would love to hear where did you learn it, or perhaps any sources for such a definition.

Here's a brief recap of how Zionism was formed and what it is:

Zionism means the desire for Jewish self determination and self governing to exist/continue in the land/country of Israel.

It is an umbrella term, like the term queer, for example.

Zionism has deep roots in Judaism. A lot of practices and rituals in Judaism involve or are related to Israel. The name Israel comes from the name Jacob got from the angel he defeated, and after him the whole tribe of the Jewish people and the area are called Israel. The name Israel is in one of the most basic Jewish prayers - Shema Israel. Also, at the end of every pesach (Passover) Seder we say "Leshana habaa beyerushalaim habnuia" - next year in built Jerusalem. Jewish people have said so ever since the diaspora started.

Before the state of Israel existed, Zionism was about how to create and build Israel.

Three examples:

Political Zionism - create Israel by first getting a charter and international recognition and funding.

Practical Zionism - create Israel by first buying land, building settlements and developing the area.

Synthetic Zionism - a merge between the two movements above. Afaik most of the early political leaders of Israel were from that movement (for example, the first Israeli prime minister - David Ben Gurion).

Nowadays, Zionism is more vague. The reason for is that Israel already exits. The different movements on how to create Israel are kind of irrelevant now, because it exists now. The discussion on how to run Israel is perhaps what one may define as different movements within Zionism in modern time, however yet almost always when one says they are a Zionist, they mean they desire/want/believe that Israel should exist. That's it.

As such, Zionism alone doesn't say almost anything about the political view of the person who identifies as a Zionist.

Afaik basically 100% of Israeli Jews and around 80% of the Jews in America identify as Zionist. Under *this* definition.

Now because Israel exists, it's much harder to talk about different movements within Zionism which aren't basically political movements within Israel.

That leads me onto Kahanism.

Kahanism is an extremist far-right nationalist-racist religious Zionist movement (that I completely do not, I repeat: **do not** agree with). It was founded by the rabbi Meir Kahane, which believed that Jews should rule the whole area which was the kingdom of Israel in the days of the Tanach and should kill anyone who's an enemy of the Jewish people (which according to him, is basically everyone).

Here's an article that sums up some of my feelings about it in relation to the current events:

[https://archive.ph/2024.06.10-191347/https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-06-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/forget-being-anti-zionists-lets-be-anti-kahanists/00000190-0228-d660-af95-6fbed3e60000]

Now on to the post that 'broke the camel's back', per say.

The post said “I think that all Israelis should go back to Europe” and that it would solve all the problems here.

Let's try to break down the sentence “all Israelis should go back to Europe”. That sentence implies that that's where *all* Israelis came from.

What's "Israeli"? Afaik, since Israel is a country, Israeli is anyone who has Israeli citizenship (and some may even add 'and/or everyone who was born here').

What's Israel's population demographic? According to official government surveys, Israel has around ~9.9 million citizens, out of which ~73% (~7.227 million) are Jewish, ~21% (2.079 million) are Arab and the rest ~6% (0.594 million or 594 thousand) are classified as else.

The Arab population of Israel (which has equal rights as the Jewish population in Israel) and the Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank originate from the same group of people. Some of them originate from Arab people who had been here for hundreds of years (since the empires age) and many originate from Arab immigration between the end of the WW1 and the establishment of Israel.

Even if you claim that the Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank are the actual indigenous population of this area (despite numerous archeological and historical evidence pointing otherwise, although they do have a long history here), you cannot claim that just because a person was born or even just lived on the other (wrong, in your eyes) side of a border they aren't indigenous to the area!

In Israel, there are also a lot of minorities who are persecuted in other parts of the middle east. Such as: Druze, Armenians, Circassians and more. They have to go to Europe too? No, just the Jews? Surely this isn't antisemitism!

And let's talk about the Jewish population in Israel. MOST JEWS DID NOT COME FROM EUROPE! There are Jews who came from diaspora in Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudia, Ethiopia and a whole lot other countries through the middle east, south west Asia and north Africa. They have to go to Europe too?

And that's beside two other important facts: first of all, the Jews are indigenous to the levant. We are indigenous to the land of Israel.

And of course, do you now what happened to Jews all over the world, and especially Europe?

To name a few very notable examples: *The Spanish inquisition*, Kishinev pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, *The Holocaust*, what that happened in the Soviet Union and many more pogroms, expulsions and massacares. (There were of course also pogroms in the MENA countries, however *I* haven't learned about them. Two examples I am told is notable is the farhood pogrom and the Holocaust in North Africa).

All throughout history, the Jews were expelled and massacred from almost every place. You then expectus to just come back to those places as if nothing has happened?

You want us to come so badly. Can you prove that we are safe to come? That we *have a place to come to*? Because so far you haven't shown that.

That when you and the people around you see a Jew, you won't immediately turn them into the scapegoat of every problom you have and then rape and/or expell and/or kill them.

And also, how would that solve more problems than it will create? Exchanging around ~2 million refugees for ~9.9 million refugees? How would that help? And even if you only mean the Jews (which I can't see how it isn't antisemitic) it's ok cause it's Jews? (which is even more antisemitic)

So no, it would not solve any problems. The country of Israel won't go anywhere, the Jews won't go anywhere, because we don't have anywhere to go - we were born here and we are staying.

However, yes, just as well, the Palestinians will probably not go anywhere (*not talking about Hamas and other similar groups here*). The only way to solve the situation is to unpack and deescalate those decades of conflict and escalation and hate, which will take a lot of work.

[hailruth]

Good time of a day!

I'm not Jew or Jewish, but I genuinely want to learn more about Judaism and Jewish culture. I recently found out about kosher clothes for girls who are 13 and higher (that the clothes must cover the elbows, etc) and wanted to know: are these rules strictly followed by Jewish girls in reality? Is it voluntary? Do secular Jews obey it?

I'd be glad if you answered these questions! Have a great day! Wish you all the best!

so, first things first, you will never be able to say that every single member of one ethnicity, religion, race, country, etc. definitively does one particular thing. so, something like how one dresses will not be universal among any group, including jews. the idea of how one should dress is also very broad; a simple yes or no answer is impossible to give on this topic. i am not a rabbi nor extremely educated on these ideas, so keep an eye out on the comments/reblogs from people who can provide more insight. also, keep in mind that i'm typing this on mobile while waiting at a gate for a flight.

there is an extremely large amount of secular jews out there and just as many religious jews who do not follow the laws of צניעות (tznius/tznuit, "modesty"). even then, how tznius is defined varies between communities (it is largely shaped by the minhag hamakom, the "custom of the place"). it also varies between streams of judaism. for example, the reform movement does not require a certain kind of dress (this does not mean that there aren't reform jews who choose to dress modestly / according to tznius), while orthodox and conservative movements will have guidelines. those are not all the branches of judaism, but they are the "big three." even within orthodoxy, which is probably what you're thinking of when you talk about "kosher clothes," there are many different ways in which people follow tznius.

there seem to be a few other misconceptions that you are approaching the topic with, so i would like to correct them.

tznius is absolutely not gender-specific (as in, only for women). modesty applies to every jew, regardless of gender. there are requirements for both men and women. there are, additionally, very interesting discussions among jews who are not cisgender or are gender nonconforming and how they interact with tznius. i do not have a personal gender identity but choose to practice judaism according to the laws given to women, and that is the only way in which i identify with any gender at all.

i am not completely sure where the "13 and higher" idea comes from. i am not educated on every single movement, but within orthodoxy, parents who choose to dress according to tznius generally start their children much earlier than that (anywhere from 2-6 years old, this is also dependent on minhag, but often is thought to only start once the child can understand the concept). there *could* be some communities that instead do this at the age of 13, but not that i personally know of. there is no strict answer as to exactly when children should begin dressing modestly.

like i said before, the idea of exactly what is modest is different between communities. modern orthodox and conservative movements, for example, follow tznius but do not always believe that this includes the need to cover elbows, according to the example you gave. as another example, not all orthodox jewish women wear strictly skirts, modern orthodox women often wear pants.

now onto your specific questions.

are these rules strictly followed by jewish girls in reality? i have largely answered this already, but to reiterate, there is no one mode of dress which you can assign to the whole of judaism or jewish women. but there are many who do follow these rules. i am an example of someone who is working towards having a modest wardrobe. in synagogue, i cover my collarbones and elbows, i also wear long skirts that are mid-calf length at the shortest. once i am married that will most likely be the entirety of my closet, though i am still personally working through whether or not i will continue to wear pants. as you can see, it is a very personal journey as clothing is so central to one's identity and mode of self-expression.

is it voluntary? again, it is impossible to give a universal answer to this question. i already have a multi-paragraph response in my mind to this, but i don't think i will get into the complexities of cultural expectations, societal norms, religious thought, and intracommunity disagreements. ideally, hopefully, and in the best scenarios, one will never, ever be forced to dress in a way that they do not want. but the world we live in is far more complex than that. however, most people who follow these laws do so because they believe in them deeply.

do secular jews obey it? well, again, this isn't a yes/no question. if they are secular, though, they definitely aren't doing it for religious reasons. i know of many jewish movements that adopt jewish forms of dress as cultural markers (such as women who cover their hair as a symbol of judaism, even if they aren't married). it's simply more comfortable and freeing for some to be more covered up, too. the reasons are endless and always personal. while most secular jews one meets probably do not choose to follow jewish modesty, there are absolutely those who do.

i hope these answers suffice. i would greatly appreciate it if any jews could share their personal beliefs and habits when it comes to how you dress. it would be most helpful for the asker to see the immense variation among movements, communities, and individuals.

[caparrucia]

I read your post about the Dead Dove Do Not Eat tag, and how you think people should take more responsibility for their own experience in the fandom sphere, and I very much agree with the points you raised. I just have a question regarding this one:

" "But what if I read something that wasn't tagged X?" Well, that's very unfortunate for you, but if it is genuinely that upsetting, you have a responsibility to yourself to only browse things explicitly tagged to not include X."

So, when I'm writing fanfics, and putting them on Ao3, should I tag their lack of things they don't include? Like, none of my fics include self harm, because I'm not willing to read it and even less willing to write it, should I put "#no self harm" in there, for people who have a worse reaction to it than I do and are following your advice?

Not asking "is it a moral imperative" because I know it isn't, but is it something you think would actually help anybody?

So, let's talk about context, because like all great spats in Fandom, this is about context.

Tags are contextual. They're flags that are trying to bring a specific demographic to your fic. Or, conversely, keep a certain demographic away from your fic. Tags are also never comprehensive. It is impossible to tag a fic comprehensively, because there will always be more tags. You can tag for the food that appears, the clothes, the political framework taken for granted. You can tag for gender or sexuality of the characters, even if the story is not about that per se. (See the large number of people annoyed when you write trans characters in stories and don't advertise it widely, despite their genital configuration having anything to do with the story at hand. Hi, Pokemon fandom. No, I will never forgive you the harassment and transphobia.)

The wording in the post, I acknowledge, might appear very dramatic at first glance. But that's because it's responding to a very dramatic, very aggressive statement. The way that certain people weaponize their trauma to try and shut down art they do not like. "This triggered me!" Is a really shitty comment to get, as a writer. Because it's usually a trap. If you extend sympathy, you will quickly find that the person yelling at you about this doesn't want platitudes or commiseration or actual resources to manage their triggers. They want you to take your fic down and remove it from the world, because "it triggered them." They want to treat your fic like a dog with rabbies: putting it down is the only conceivable solution, and no amount of polite rebukes (or, let's face it, annoyed snarking) will get you anywhere. They are not having a conversation with you. They have deemed you responsible for doing them harm (your work triggered them, therefore you, personally, set out to trigger them) and they're not willing to take anything less but the obliteration of your work as restitution.

The response "lol, that's a you problem, if it's so bad, you have a personal responsibility to not read anything that isn't explicitly stated to not include the thing that triggers you" is very mean. I acknowledge that. But it's not a response that comes from community, it's a response that aims to communicate clearly and concisely that you're not available to entertain any kind of overwrought nonsense and that you're not available to be emotionally blackmailed into removing your work from circulation.

Triggers are like allergies. The people that have them have to manage them to their best of their ability, and the people who don't have those triggers could stand to do more to be accommodating, for sure. Current tag culture is in fact the result of years upon years of the Wild West Internet that us old farts are constantly talking about. See, in the old internet, there was no social expectation for tagging. You got a title, you got a rating (not always!), sometimes you got a pairing. Anything else was a roulette. Like literally anything. I used to be in FMA fandom way back before AO3 and tag culture was a thing and let me tell you, the amount of times I ended up mid-incest fic because the initial premise sounded like a cute brothers bonding scenario? More than once. There was no tag for incest. Someone threw a fic into an IRC channel with a generic "this one was good!" and it could be ANYTHING. Literally anything!

Here's where I disagree with a lot of The Olds who whine about The Old Days: the Old Days way of doing fic? Awful. Shitty. Traumatizing, legitimately. I love tag culture. I think tag culture is one of the nicest, most amazing things we as a fandom have come together to do. It gives so much freedom for the author to choose how much they want to spoil/warn form, and it also gives readers so much freedom of choice! It's a great system! Not a perfect one. No system is perfect. But it's a great compromise. I don't think people understand how utterly revolutionary the Archive Warnings are, in AO3. Just narrowing it down to those four! (Underage, Non-Con, Graphic Violence and Character death, for those uninitiated, as well as the opt out of Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings.) This system allows the most widespread triggers and preferences to be respected. If you don't like fic about people under 18 doing anything relationship related? Slap that Underage and the Choose Not To Warn archive warning in your exclude options and you're good. Same for non-con. Or Character death! The way the Archive is setup, this guarantees you will not see fic with that.

That's revolutionary! It's great! We should hype it more.

This is one of the reasons why I'm so testy about the Dead Dove tag. I know the ship has sailed, the tag has changed meaning and it is a completely different function now, than when it started. (This is also why I don't respond to the handful of people who insist that my history is wrong and the tag is useful actually! They're missing the point of the post and also I was there when the tag first came about. I'm in the reblogs of the original post.) The problem with Dead Dove is not itself, but that its a symptom of people - most commonly antis, but really, this isn't a group-specific behavior, stupidity is policy neutral - using tags not to find fic to read or to filter out fic they don't want to read, and instead using them to find people to harass. That endangers the whole system, because people stop using understandable, straightforward tags for their stuff and instead start making convoluted spaghetti tags that only make sense in-group to try and avoid getting caught in the harassment campaign. And that sucks! That kind of behavior should be publicized and blacklisted in fandom. Ostracize people who try to misuse categorization tools as weapons of abuse, and endanger the entire system in the process. Fuck them.

To your point, should you add "no self-harm" to your fic? I don't know! I don't know your fic. Does it make sense for you to add it? Do the rest of the tags in your fic paint a picture that might require that clarification? I think the underlying conversation is that people who fearmonger about their triggers and try to use their trauma to bully strangers on the internet are really very stupid. Most stories don't include a tag about self-harm because most stories don't include any self-harm at all. Same with sexual acts. Or crimes. Tags highlight content that might be expected based on the culture the fic is coming from. If you write fic for the alien incest show (Trigun) and your fic somehow doesn't have any aliens or incest in it, it would be worthwhile to tag it for it. Just because people might expect it! Or if you're writing about depression and spiraling and mental health crisis for a character but very specifically not about self-harm? Yeah, that'd make sense to highlight that.

Ultimately, as the author, you get to choose the tags you put in, and in doing so, you choose the audience you're targeting. This is where the triggers as allergies metaphor breaks though. Fanfic is not a necessity. It's a privilege. It's a gift writers give their fandom and no one in their fandom is entitled to it. That's why tags are optional. That's why you can still rawdog fic the way we used to, and read through "Chose not to warn" And all the stories that have a fandom and a pairing and a rating, and then nothing else. No one's life is being endangered, if they don't get to read any given fic. Does it suck to be excluded in a community space? Sure! But it's not life or death and treating it like such is the source of much of the headaches around this.

Fanfic is a gift. If you have very bad triggers, you have a responsibility to yourself to only accept gifts that are explicitly for you (tagged around your personal triggers). You can always ask, but an author is always entitled to decline to tag their work. And they're not being an asshole for it. Social media has poisoned people into seeing any interaction as a you vs them situation, but the truth is people are just trying to vibe.

[the-hydroxian-artblog]

Do you ever have days where art isn't fun or you just can't get into it? Do you to anything to get yourself going or just chill out till the feeling comes up again?

Honestly it's really 50/50 between "ALRIGHT!! JUST PUSH!! DO IT" and "fuck this. im doing fuck all until the last minute, and whatever happens happens".

Often times I can easily draw something stupid and off the top of my head... but because the idea lacks a certain "hook", I'll be completely demotivated to actually draw it or post anything. And honestly it kinda sucks!! Because you should draw whatever if you enjoy it. And I do, but I always wanna make something that is just the littlest bit more novel and interesting than previous stuff. When I just draw a character in a cool pose, I sometimes lament the lack of a good hook or twist to add to it.

What are we really obligated to draw, though? Sometimes you do something fun because it IS fun. But if you do the same thing over and over, it becomes less fun. So I guess it's best to chill out. But don't be surprised if challenging yourself is the kind of fun you needed all along; my advice, try a little of both. If you try challenging yourself and nothing goes anywhere, it's time to rest. If you start to feel anxious about doing nothing after genuinely resting for a day, then try drawing again. That's part of it, anyway. The other part is spending some time to brainstorm ideas, which goes back to the whole "hook" aspect; sometimes there's just more interesting and fun things to draw, but you can't come up with them for whatever the reason. Not inspired enough, not willing to get out of your comfort zone...

idk. I guess just, take a moment to reflect a good bit. Have a dialogue. in your brain, about what stuff you can draw and if you're in the mood. talk to your teacher, priest, or rabbi. ask an adult. yeah, ask an adult about it. or just another friend. both, ideally