The Pharaoh Narrative As A Tale of Addiction

I'm reading through The Big Book, which neophytes can think of as the Alcoholics Anonymous bible. I learned something new, namely that alcoholism is considered an illness. In Chapter 2, the text states, "An illness of this sort- and we have come to believe it is an illness-involves those about us in a way no other sickness can" (18). In italics, the illness is later described:

The fact is that most alcoholics, for reasons yet obscure, have lost the power of choice in drink. Our so-called will power becomes practically nonexistent. We are unable, at certain times, to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force the memory of the suffering and humiliation of even a week or a month ago. We are without defense against the first drink. (Page 24)

William D. Clark, MD, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, says in this AA.org clip "Alcohol, for some people, is poison. It just isn't the same for the alcoholic person as it is for a normal drinker. And once you get into that place of having alcohol run your life, it's like having an allergy to alcohol and it's very helpful to tell people, 'Look, alcohol is special- for you. It's different for you than it is for other people. Alcohol, in your situation, is a poison." He continues, "But I think the key concept is that it's poisonous, it's addictive, that the neurochemical changes in the brain caused by frequent and constant exposure to alcohol are such that people are no longer free to decide whether they're gonna drink or not, and if they drink, they're not free to decide how much they're gonna drink."

I came across a fascinating section in Chapter 3 that expands upon this statement:

Though there is no way of proving it, we believe that early in our drinking careers most of us could have stopped drinking. But the difficulty is that few alcoholics have enough desire to stop while there is yet time. We have heard of a few instances where people, who showed definite signs of alcoholism, were able to stop for a long period because of an overpowering desire to do so. 

[...] 

As we look back, we feel we had gone on drinking many years beyond the point where we could quit on will power. If anyone questions whether he has entered this dangerous area, let him try leaving liquor alone for one year. If he is a real alcoholic and very far advanced, there is scant chance of success. In the early days of our drinking we occasionally remained sober for a year or more, becoming serious drinkers again later. Though you may be able to stop for a considerable period, you may yet be a potential alcoholic. We think few, to whom this book may appeal, can stay dry for anything like a year. Some will be drunk the day after making their resolutions; most of them within a few weeks.  

For those who are unable to drink moderately, the question is how to stop altogether. We are assuming, of course, that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it- the utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish.  

~Pages 33-34

Even though Alcoholics Anonymous sees alcoholism as a disease and illness, they do not excuse their behavior as not having been their fault due to the fact they were ill. After all, people still got hurt in the process. Therefore, the Ninth Step of the Twelve-Step Program is to make "direct amends to such people [all persons we had harmed] wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others."

As I was reading, I realized that these ideas illuminate the Pharaoh story.

When we read the Pharaoh narrative, one of the most popular questions that is asked revolves around Exodus 9:12 and on.

  וַיְחַזֵּק יְהוָה אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם:  כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Many people are deeply perplexed by this verse. What does it mean that God hardened Pharaoh's heart? Does that mean that God has divested Pharaoh of his free will? 

Many of the commentators address this question and offer interesting interpretations. Seforno provides a particularly novel one when he says that in fact, God hardening Pharaoh's heart was giving him back his free will, allowing him to decide what he wanted to do without being moved by his people's complaints or pleas. 

But if you look at this story as a tale of addiction, then you will see that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was an unfortunate but natural consequence of his former actions. 

I propose that Pharaoh was addicted to power, and specifically to the power relationship he had over the Jews. In the same way that an alcoholic loses the power to choose whether to drink and how much to drink due to his recurrent drinking, Pharaoh lost the opportunity to choose whether to exert power over Bnei Yisrael and how much power to exert. How else to explain the incredibly irrational decisions that he made?

Here is what happened to Pharaoh due to his refusal to release the Jews.

1. His main water supply (the Nile River), and that of all of Egypt, turned into blood. The fish died, which caused a horrible stench, and contaminated the water supply still further. It was also embarrassing that the being he worshipped as God (the Nile) was subject to this other, foreign, invading God's power.
       -Pharaoh takes no notice of this. Exodus 7:23 states that "Pharaoh turned and went back into his house; neither did he lay even this to his heart."

2. The entire land swarmed with frogs, which were a nuisance, but moreover, died, which created a stench throughout the land.
             -Pharaoh's response to this shows that he wants to behave rationally. In Exodus 8:4 he declares, "Entreat the Lord that He remove the frogs from me, and from my people, and I will let the people go, that they may make sacrifice to God."

3. Everyone in Egypt becomes infested with lice, which is extremely unpleasant.
            -The magicians themselves point out that Pharaoh cannot win here, saying that "this is the finger of God" in Exodus 8:15. 

4. Wild beasts tear throughout the land.
            -Once again, Pharaoh longs to behave rationally. In Exodus 8:21 he states, "Go and sacrifice to God in the land." He solidifies his promise in Exodus 8:23 when he says, "I will let you go so that you can sacrifice to God in the wilderness; only do not go very far away, entreat for me."

(Look at the wording! Pharaoh cannot bear to be far from his power source; even when letting them go, he gives the condition that they should not go very far away).

5. There is pestilence throughout the land and the death of all the animals.

6. Everyone in the land receives boils, including the magicians who had formerly been replicating the plagues.

7. Fiery hail rains down upon the land and destroys the crops.

            -Pharaoh attempts to behave rationally. In Exodus 9:27 he admits "I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous and I and my people are wicked. In Exodus 9:28 he requests for them to ask God to make the plague stop, and once that happens he agrees to let the people go. 

8. When it is predicted that locusts will come upon the entire land, the language of the pasuk is curious. It says that God hardens both Pharaoh's heart and that of his servants. But note what his servants say to him in Exodus 10:7!

  וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַבְדֵי פַרְעֹה אֵלָיו, עַד-מָתַי יִהְיֶה זֶה לָנוּ לְמוֹקֵשׁ--שַׁלַּח אֶת-הָאֲנָשִׁים, וְיַעַבְדוּ אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם; הֲטֶרֶם תֵּדַע, כִּי אָבְדָה מִצְרָיִם

And Pharaoh's servants said unto him: 'How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God, knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?'

Clearly, the impact that hardening Pharoah's heart has upon him vs. the impact it has upon the servants is different. The servants are aware that Egypt is destroyed, and that the only rational solution is to let the people go. Pharoah is only aware of this during brief, lucid, sober moments- but the rest of the time, he clings to his addiction, his power over the Hebrews. In Exodus 10:11 he requests that only the men go to serve God (a partial concession), and God brings locusts upon the land. 

In Exodus 10:17 Pharaoh admits he has sinned against God and Moses and Aaron and asks them to remove this 'death' from upon him, but once again, he goes back to his 'drink'.

9. Darkness covers the entire land; the Egyptians cannot see anyone or anything.
           - In Exodus 10:24 Pharaoh is willing to release everyone, including the children, except for the flocks and herds of animals (he needs some sort of guarantee or collateral that the Hebrews will return). When the Hebrew refuse this offer, Pharaoh becomes irate and tells Moshe to get out of his sight, because the day Moshe sees his face again, he'll die.

10. Death of all of the firstborn in Egypt.
--Finally Pharoah lets the people go, but not for long! In Exodus 14:3, it's declared that Pharaoh will assume that he can bring the Hebrews back because they are trapped in the land. 

Pharaoh loses literally everything due to his obsession with holding on to the Jewish people. His God is attacked, his land is filled with heaps of dead animals that create a stench and pollute the water supply, the bodies of his people are scabbed over due to lice and bursting pustules of boils, his livestock is torn apart or die, his crops are ripped apart by hail or destroyed by locusts, psychological warfare in the shape of darkness takes hold of him and every single Egyptian loses at least one member of their family during the death of the firstborns. Many times, Pharaoh wants to give in and promises that he will do better, that he will let the people go, or that he will let them go- partially. You can go- but not with your wives. You can go- but not with your animals. This is kind of like the wheedling conversations ascribed to alcoholics in The Big Book where people say "I'll drink beer- but not whiskey" or "See? I've licked alcohol because I haven't taken a drink- so let me take a drink now." Or swearing up and down to your wife or loved one that you'll be a changed man- but then showing up drunk the next day. And in the wake of  everything, after losing everything, Pharaoh still goes out, along with his whole army, to recapture the Hebrews. Who would behave this way if not an addict? It is Pharaoh's sheer desperation, his inability to live without the Hebrews under his thumb, without wielding power over them, that drives all his actions. The actions are neither rational nor logical, just like true alcoholism is not rational or logical- the alcoholic invariably loses his job, his wife, relationships with friends and family, his money and makes a mess of his life so that in the end, he is literally living in order to drink. In the end, Pharaoh's only goal (it's almost like he's a mad Captain Ahab, only intent upon the great white whale) is not to rebuild the destroyed land of Egypt, but to reclaim the Jews. And in pursuit of that, he perishes- much like the alcoholic in pursuit of more and more alcohol drinks himself to death when unchecked.

So what then, you may ask, was Pharaoh supposed to do? If he was truly an addict, in the same way that alcoholics are addicts, what could he do?

Well, the Twelve Step program outlines it beautifully.

1. We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol- that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him.

What Pharaoh needed to do was:

1. Admit that he was powerless over his addiction (in this case, an addiction to power, specifically power over the Jewish people)- and that his choices at this point were based on his desire to keep them in the land vs. his desire to do what was best for his country and for his people.

2. Believe that God (and in this case, following God's command) could restore him to sanity.

3. Make a decision to turn his life over to the care of God, not only by following God's order to release His people, but by then praying to God that He would be able to help Pharoah to live his life as king without needing to have the Hebrews subjugated to him. He could pray that God would release him from this insane quest for power at all odds, even as his country disintegrates around him.

But Pharaoh refused to humble himself. At first, he refuses to even recognize God (see Exodus 5:2, where he states 'Who is God, that I should listen to Him? I know not the Lord and I will not let Israel go'), then he admits that he has sinned to God, but always asks an intermediary (Moshe and/or Aharon) to pray to God. He never prays to God Himself. He never acknowledges Him or asks for help ruling over or controlling his addiction. (It is deliciously ironic that Moshe, the humblest man ever to have lived, is pitted against Pharaoh  the man whose problem is that he cannot humble himself!) And so the real sin of Pharaoh isn't necessarily the fact that he has an addiction, but that he doesn't take the requisite steps to cure himself of it (or at least, since one can argue no addict is ever truly cured), to manage it.

Thus, the Pharaoh story becomes a cautionary tale. It is the story of a man who was so addicted to power that he lost his life, his country, and his nation. He and his countrymen were drowned at sea, and his land was ravaged by the ten plagues. Had he acknowledged God and followed His command, or at least thrown himself on God's mercy by directly asking God for the strength to allow him to successfully release the Jews, we might be reading a very different story. We might be reading the story of a recovering power addict, spared by the grace of God, rather than the story of one who lost everything.

The Aveirah Song T-Shirt

My husband showed me "The Aveirah Song" by Lev Aryeh guys and I've been cracking up ever since. There's only one error in the song (that I could catch)- they pronounce the name Shmuel 'Shmuel' when they should pronounce it 'Shmiel.'

Anyway, click here for the amazing song. It's a Purim parody, and it's brilliant in the way Weird Al Yankovic and Lonely Island parodies are brilliant.

I made a shirt on CustomInk.com based on the song. I know that a snake is not a sheretz, but this was the closest I could find, so consider it a lizard.

Here's a picture.

And here's where you can see the full shirt (click for the link).

More Thoughts On The Megillah

My student and I were learning today and we came across several interesting things that I am going to share below.

1) All of us have heard the interpretation that Memuchan is Haman, and they are the same character. My student and I were learning the peshat of the Megillah, not the derash, but she herself came up with the connection. Here's why:

Memuchan's reasoning is that if Vashti is permitted to get away with not listening to the king's command, all the other women will decide to flout their husbands' authority. This will be terrible, so the king needs to make an example out of Vashti by either banishing or beheading her (the plain text makes it seem like he banishes her; the derash says he beheads her).

Haman's reasoning is exactly the same when he sees Mordechai. He sees Mordechai does not follow the king's command and refuses to bow. The servants inform him the reason behind Mordechai not bowing is that he is a Jew. When Haman talks to the king and persuades him to authorize the killing of the Jews, he notes, " וְאֶת-דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" which at first, seems odd. Just because Mordechai isn't keeping the king's law doesn't mean all the Jews aren't keeping the king's law. But if you look deeper, the reason Mordechai gave for why he is refusing to bow is because he is a Jew. Therefore, it follows that all the Jews would refuse to bow, and thus all the Jews would be guilty of not keeping the king's law. An example needs to be made out of this nation so that no other nation will think they can get away with not keeping the king's law.

This way of thinking is so unique that our sages conclude (or at least, my student did) that Memuchan and Haman are the same people.

2) I really like seeing where Chazal come up with their readings of the Tanakh, and today we saw a great example of this. Mordechai refuses to bow, which means that he is flouting the king's command. The king's servants inquire, " מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה עוֹבֵר, אֵת מִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ?" Mordechai does not listen to them. At first we might think this means that he does not listen to their question, but it soon becomes apparent that what it really means is that he does not listen to them in terms of bowing; he refuses to listen to their advice to bow. The king's servants tell Haman that Mordechai is a Jew because "כִּי-הִגִּיד לָהֶם, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא יְהוּדִי." The question is, why would Mordechai have told the servants that he was a Jew? The answer is that somehow, that answers their question! So the conversation looks like:

Mordechai: *Is not bowing*
King's Servanats: Why are you transgressing the commandment of the king?
Mordechai: I am a Jew.
King's Servants: You should still bow!
Mordechai: *does not heed them*

The question then becomes, how does Mordechai's nationality answer the question? How does answering "I am a Jew" explain why Mordechai is not bowing? This is where the famous answer that Haman was wearing an idol on his clothing/ person comes in. Haman is wearing an idol on his person and Mordechai is a Jew and therefore cannot bow down, which would be worshipping idols. 

(Incidentally, I have the niggling idea in my mind that this scene is meant to connect with the scene in Jonah- there, he declares himself a Hebrew and we also have the casting of lots- but I need to think more about what exactly the connection is.)

3) I've been watching a lot of "Game of Thrones" on HBO, and I've also read the series. It occurs to me that Mordechai is a kind of Viserys the Spymaster. Here's why: First, we see him overhear the plot to assassinate the king that occurs with Bigsan and Seresh. But then, he's privy to a different piece of information that he has no reason to know:

 וַיַּגֶּד-לוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר קָרָהוּ; וְאֵת פָּרָשַׁת הַכֶּסֶף, אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הָמָן לִשְׁקוֹל עַל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ ביהודיים (בַּיְּהוּדִים)--לְאַבְּדָם.

How does Mordechai know the sum of money that Haman promised to give the king? On the one hand, it's possible that Haman was walking around bragging, saying "I offered the king 10,000 pieces of silver to kill the Jews, and he said kill them, and gave the money back to me!" But let's assume Haman wasn't bragging. How then does Mordechai know a private conversation that took place solely between the King and Haman?

Well, either he's a prophet and so God told him, or he's a spymaster who makes it his business to know what is going on in the court. The second interpretation fits the peshat better. 

4) As an aside, I would just like to say that to me, the coolest part of this story in terms of Esther's heroism and women's agency in general is that she has to use her mind. The Queen in an Oriental country has absolutely no power. She cannot go to the King uninvited. He must summon her or extend the golden scepter. She is not even informed of the important court decisions that he is making. She has no idea her people are in danger; it is Mordechai, who is outside of the palace, who must come to her to tell her of the proclamation and show her a copy of the decree. She is literally a prisoner inside of her beautiful palace. Therefore, the only weapon that Esther has is her mind. Using her cunning and her wisdom, she must come up with the exact way to persuade the king to save her people's life. She must figure out what will stimulate the king to reconsider, and must use those weapons.

5) This leads us to Esther's plan. Esther invites the king to a feast, a mishteh. Now, there are a lot of parties that are happening in this book. The first party is for 180 days and it is to celebrate the king's coronation. Then there is another party for 7 days, where the king and the queen are celebrating separately. Note that the king's party takes place in the  גִּנַּת בִּיתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ while Vashti's party takes place in the בֵּית, הַמַּלְכוּת. There is something rather troubling about the power balance here. Vashti is inside of the royal house, possibly in the position of more power, while the king is outside of it, in the garden. 

The king makes one more party. This happens when he crowns Esther. 

  וַיַּעַשׂ הַמֶּלֶךְ מִשְׁתֶּה גָדוֹל, לְכָל-שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו--אֵת, מִשְׁתֵּה אֶסְתֵּר; וַהֲנָחָה לַמְּדִינוֹת עָשָׂה, וַיִּתֵּן מַשְׂאֵת כְּיַד הַמֶּלֶךְ.

So why then does Esther invite the king to parties? 

She is doing it deliberately. She wants to jog his memory. It was at a party that your former wife- Vashti- humiliated you. But it was also at a party that you celebrating choosing me, appointing me in her stead. Here we are at yet another party. Remember my loyalty to you? Remember her disloyalty? 

At the second party, Esther reveals that Haman has tried to kill her and her people. The king, filled with rage, goes outside to the גִּנַּת, הַבִּיתָן. This implies that Esther has deliberately held her party in a location that is adjacent to the palace garden. Why? Because she wants to set off the king's wrath. The last time I was in this palace garden, he is thinking, my trusted wife Vashti refused to obey my command. When the king goes for a walk in the garden, this memory comes back to him (consciously or subconsciously) full force. So when he enters the room to see Haman fallen upon the queen, the rage of that betrayal feeds into his anger at Haman, and leads him to feel betrayed by a close person yet again- and he orders him hanged. 

6) If we go according to the Rav's interpretation, where the king suffers from insecurity in his realm and fears revolt, his reasons for killing Haman become even more clear (I'm reading the ending a little differently from the Rav). When the king is sleeping fitfully one night, he awakes and reads of the service Mordechai has done for him. Then comes a non sequitur. 

 וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, מִי בֶחָצֵר

Why does the king suddenly ask "Who is in the court?" It seems like he heard a noise, or something else disturbed him about the presence of someone in the court, because otherwise Haman would have been announced and would have entered. Instead, the king is disturbed by someone's presence in the dead of night in the courtyard, and learns that it is Haman's. Later on, he discovers Haman has hatched a plot to kill the queen and her people. Finally, he enters the room and sees Haman fallen upon the queen- in his mind, possibly to kill her! Charvonah then speaks up and says "Haman erected a gallows to kill Mordechai- the one who saved your life!" The king's suspicious mind is turning. He thinks, "Haman wants to kill Mordechai- the man who saved me. Perhaps, then, Haman is really against me! Perhaps he was even part of that plot with Bigsan and Seresh! If he wants to kill Mordechai, who saved me, then perhaps that means he wants to kill me! After all, why was he in my courtyard in the dead of night? Let's get rid of this treasonous man- let's kill him!" 

7) If we go with the idea that the king is paranoid, it also explains why he would be willing to allow Haman's sons to be hanged upon the gallows. Esther requests that, and the king permits it. Here's why it could work- in the scene where Haman gets advice as to what to do to Mordechai, he has summoned " זֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכָל-אֹהֲבָיו". The JPS translation translates "ohavav" as "his friends," but what if it was literally all that he loved, meaning his sons? If his sons and his wife are the ones who advised him to hang Mordechai on the gallows, Mordechai the man who had saved the king's life, then it makes sense that Esther wants to kill those treasonous sons. By trying to hang the man who had saved the king's life, they put themselves under suspicion of not wanting the king to be saved in the first place! The only difficulty with this approach is, if so, why is Zeresh not punished at all? In fact, what happens to Zeresh? We aren't told.

Now we come to some questions I have. 

8) Mordechai gives Esther advice not to reveal her identity. And  yet, he told the servants, when they questioned him as to why he wasn't bowing down, that he was a Jew. This information gets back to Haman, who uses it to decide to kill all the Jews. The question I have is: Why didn't Mordechai take his own advice? Why did he not divulge his identity? Moreover, later on he says "Who is to say that this is not the reason that you arose to royalty?" to Esther re: her role in saving the Jews. But the fact is, there would have been no need to save the Jews if Mordechai had a) bowed or b) not divulged that he was a Jew, because then Haman could just have killed him, not his whole nation.

9) Mordechai refuses to don the clothing Esther sends him in order to enter the inner courtyard of the king and speak with her directly. Rather, he communicates with her via Hasach. I imagine that we can take some sort of meaning from this, such as that one is not allowed to put off mourning for even one moment when a terrible decree is clustered overhead, but it does seem odd. Why does Mordechai prefer to talk to Esther via a third party rather than just changing into the nice clothing for a few moments in order to chat with her, and then change back into the sackcloth? 

10) It says at the end of Chapter 3 that Shushan was bewildered. What were they bewildered by? Haman and Achashveirosh sitting down to drink? The decree against the Jews? What bewildered them and why? 

The Paranoid King: Insights Into Achashveirosh

Over Shabbat, my husband pointed me to Shiurei Ha-Rav, specifically the section on Purim. There, I read a fascinating write-up of a lecture on Purim delivered by the Rav in 1973. Tonight, I found Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's 'Insights into M'gillat Esther' reprinted in this Tebah.org Purim Reader, and figured I would reprint the excerpt focusing on Achashveirosh that helps shed some light on this king's character.

~


The king had a paranoid fear of an insurrection against the throne. The Talmud relates that he was not the legitimate heir to the kingdom, rather the son of the steward of the royal stables. His only connection with royalty was through his wife Vashti, daughter of Belshazzar. She obviously despised him as a social climber who lacked any royal grace and dignity. There was an underground movement to overthrow the government and restore the old order, as evidenced by the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh. Ahashverosh tried to “buy” the country’s loyalty by making those lavish parties and inviting everyone to eat and drink and view his wealth and women. But this is all clearly the workings of a mind that feels very insecure and fears revolt. The absurd law (4:11) proclaiming death to anyone who entered the throne room without an appointment seems also to be an outgrowth of his paranoid fear of revolt or assassination. When Vashti publicly insults him, he was worried that if he should kill her, this would inspire a revolution. M’mukhan (1:16-20) gave him the following brilliant analysis: “True, if you kill Vashti you may trigger off a revolt, but if you allow her to survive after publicly insulting the king, then she will serve as a model for all the women of royal blood to insult their husbands.” It was the custom in antiquity for the victor to marry the widow or daughter of the vanquished power. Thus, many of Ahashverosh’s officers had married women of the old order. “If they saw that the queen was not punished for her insolence, they too would start fighting their husbands and join the underground movement to restore the old order. The way to nip that in the bud is to execute Vashti.” Thus M’mukhan, whom the Talmud tells us was Haman, gained the confidence of the paranoiac king, appearing as one who loyally defended the throne. Immediately following the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh, we find that Haman was appointed Prime Minister. The king was really frightened, and in his paranoia he turned to the person who had proven his loyalty M’mukhan (Haman)—and placed his faith in him.

Feeling slighted by Mordekhai, Haman decides to destroy the Jews. He plays on the king’s paranoia by casting suspicion on the loyalty of the Jews. He tells the king (3:8) that the Jews are a unified nation, widely dispersed in the kingdom, with queer laws and customs. Being a strange nation, no one can guess whether they are planning a revolt. Should they decide to join the underground, their unity as well as their dispersion geographically could make the insurrection very successful.

The king fell for this ploy and agreed to kill the Jews. When a paranoid lives in fear of an imaginary monster, all moral controls are abandoned. He has only one irresistible urge—to destroy. Esther understood all this very well and therefore could not agree to Mordekhai’s plan of immediate action. Once Haman had succeeded in arousing in the king fear of Jewish revolt, no human power or pleading could dissuade him from destroying his imaginary enemies. In grappling with the realities of the situation it was a woman’s mind, not a man’s ideas, that was needed. Esther decided that the only way out would be to turn the tables on Haman and accuse him of plotting against the king. She procrastinated day after day, waiting to find a possible opening, a possible way to shatter the king’s faith in his trusted Prime Minister. It seemed that only a miracle could weaken his trust and indeed a miracle happened: Balaila ha-hu nad’da sh’nat ha-melekh (6:1). This is the turning point in the whole story, the prime miracle. The most significant aspect of that night was not so much the king’s new respect for Mordekhai, but his loss of confidence in Haman. You feel the king’s malicious joy in taunting Haman while ordering him to honor “Mordekhai the Jew” (6:10). Whether it was Haman’s mention of the royal crown (6:8) that made the king suspect his loyalty, or his failure to reward the king’s benefactor Mordekhai, or the shifting perception of the universe in the mind of this paranoiac king, it was time for Esther to plant the seeds of distrust in his mind. This is the kind of subtle hester panim miracle, a change of mood in the mind of a deranged king, for which we give thanks to God on Purim. The next day, when Esther charges Haman with treason, the king willingly accepts the accusation. She explains to the king that had Haman really felt concern for the better interest of the king, he would have placed the Jews in forced labor camps, thereby keeping them under surveillance in a profitable set up. “But the villain is not concerned about the threat to the king” (7:4). By proposing to arm the countryside with weapons to kill the Jews, he was really making it much easier for the revolutionary elements of the population to organize their revolution. Esther made the king believe that Haman was plotting against the throne. The king’s paranoia took over where Esther’s words ceased. Upon returning from the garden to find Haman on the couch where Esther was lying he screams, “Do you even plan to seduce the queen while I am in the house?” (7:8). He was so convinced of Haman’s treachery that everything he did was viewed through the lenses of his paranoia. He “saw” Haman not only planning the revolt but even trying to steal the queen! This was the ultimate sign of revolt. Haman’s fate was sealed. The very strategy and the fate planned for the Jews now backfired on Haman and his associates.

Grapes & Their Issues (Operation: Cheer Up A Sick Chana)

It was a dark and rainy night. Tonight, actually. I was sitting on an accordion bus, my eyes limping across the outfits and objects of the people sitting across from me. My nose was red and runny; I was sad and sick. I saw a black man who reminded me of the Shepherd Book character in "Firefly." He was holding a book called 'Grapes and their Issues.'

"Grapes and their issues?" I thought indignantly. "What the hell, man? Who are grapes to complain? I mean, here I sit, having been told to leave my workplace by wellmeaning colleagues, my nose shot to hell, dripping like a leaky faucet, my eyes glazed over, my head feeling dull and foggy- and grapes have issues? I've just waited in the wet for a half an hour, the bus didn't come on time, and I narrowly escaped being drenched in a rainstorm... tell me, I ask, what kinds of issues do grapes have, exactly? It's like those Grapes of Wrath- I mean, whoever heard of wrathful grapes? What kind of ridiculous title for a book is that, anyway?"

I then reread the title. It said: 'Graphs and their Uses.'

Oh.

~

(If you enjoyed this post, please post a potential issue that a grape might have in the comments.) 

I Was A Very Strong Woman

There's a book I love called A Ring of Endless Light. I love it because I understand the characters, I value and respect them, and I appreciate the relationships between them.

There's this one scene where Vicky is talking to her grandfather about Zachary. I wrote up the scene here (click for link). 

"The thing is- he needs me," Vicky says, as she talks about Zachary. Zachary's needing her is the siren song that can pull her away from everything else she might love and might hold dear. And Grandfather cautions her that that is not healthy. He doesn't caution her with those words- he doesn't see it in terms of health. As a Christian, he instead puts into perspective based on vanity and the vanity a person has in thinking that they can bear the burdens that are meant for others.

Today I was home sick, so I decided to devote some time to watching TED Talks. I watched one given by Leslie Morgan Steiner entitled "Why Domestic Violence Victims Don't Leave." You can watch it below:



There was something she said that struck me- struck me and made me shiver. I felt resonance because what she said made sense to me. It's something I think, too. (For clarification's sake, not about my husband. But it's an attitude I understand.)

She said "I never once thought of myself as a battered wife. Instead, I 

was a very strong woman in love with a very troubled man. And I 

was the only person on earth who could help Connor face his 

demons."

We provide context and narrative to the situations in which we find ourselves. We either internalize or externalize. Leslie didn't want to say, "My husband is doing things that are harmful and dangerous. He is threatening my life. I may love him, but I need to leave him." Instead, she wanted to say, "My husband is a troubled man, but it is my duty to prove my fidelity to him. I will stand by him, through thick and thin. I will be there for him, because I am the only one who has the key to him- the only one who will be able to help him heal. This is my special task, and I must fulfill it." 

There is an idea that especially those of us who have been rejected, who have felt ourselves to be outcasts, hold ourselves to. The idea is this: We will never reject anyone. We will not leave them behind. We will remain loyal, no matter what. Even if the person isn't showing us proper respect or kindness. Even if the person treats us badly. We will stay, until that person makes us leave. Or, until we find the courage to leave, depending on how bad the situation is. 

We cannot bear to see in ourselves the slightest shadow of the attitudes that hurt us so deeply, so profoundly. Therefore, we leap away from these choices. We need to be better people, in our minds, to ourselves, than the people who hurt us. But because of this, we limit our options. The only role that we can play is that of savior, and we must put up with hurtful or harmful behavior because to challenge it is to reject others, which is something we must not do. We can't see both sides to the story. The only story that we can be part of is one where in the end, it will all come right. We will be loyal until that loyalty is rewarded. We will be strong. We will be Beauty saving the Beast. We will love our partners back to health, and all will be well.

Except for the times it doesn't work out that way. The times where we need help in realizing that despite denial, that narrative isn't the only way things could work out. The times where we need to be told that it is not strength that keeps us with this person, but a simple inability to conceive of any other options. To us, there is no other choice. Because leaving is admitting failure- and we cannot bear to fail. Leaving is rejecting someone we care about- and we cannot bear to reject them. Leaving hurts us- and we cannot bear the pain. 

Until the time comes when we learn why we cannot bear to stay.

And by then, it's usually too late.

The Problem With Contemporary YA Fantasy

Many of you are aware that I read a lot of Young Adult Fiction & Fantasy. I read it because I like it, and also because I like to know what my students are reading. I've read many amazing books, but I'm troubled because I feel like the genre as a whole is missing something integral and vital. 

They're missing reality.

Here's what I mean by this. YA fiction & fantasy fall into one of two categories.

Category 1: Adventurous hero or heroine battle demons, angels or other supernatural beings in order to save the world, right a wrong, and on the way, fall in love with one another. Their epic love story is usually star-crossed, and both hero and heroine and friends feel intensely during their battle. 

Category 2: Main protagonist has to deal with life in a really crummy situation- whether it's them or their friend who is dealing with mental health issues, drugs, an eating disorder, cancer and so on. They are a wry, interesting, irascible or spiritual character who pulls the reader in. 

Here's the problem. These two categories don't cross over in a meaningful way. Let me offer an example.

An example of a Category 1 book is Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments trilogy. Clary, Jace and Simon, alongside Isabelle, Alec, Magnus and others battle all sorts of difficult creatures and situations, but all of their feelings and issues revolve around love. Yes, Jace is a little messed up because of his father (who raised him to think that love is a weakness, and that loving would break him), but it's nothing a little love from Clary can't fix. These characters don't have to deal with their issues or emotions in a real way. They don't have real-life reactions to the situations they face (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, other mental health issues) and they don't have to deal with them in real ways (therapy, for instance).

An example of a Category 2 book is The Fault in Our Stars by John Green. This moving and hilarious book makes cancer funny. It explores the lives of two people battling cancer, one of whom makes it and one of whom doesn't. The friendships read as real, the issues (whether dealing with the cancer, trying to avoid dealing with the cancer, or wanting to find love) read as real. 

What troubles me is that the real life issues that are faced in books like Speak, The Fault in Our Stars, Hush and so on are not addressed in fantasy novels. Now, I can understand why that is. Most fantasy writers like to make completely separate worlds where the issues are fully external (or internal at times, but overcome by a little love). But I think this actually weakens the fantasy world. In a true fantasy world, people love, grieve, and are impacted by the events that occur. People are not just cold-blooded killers who never have to deal with PTSD or deal with phantom limb pain or who have flashbacks after being raped. Making reality converge with fantasy would actually, in my opinion, make the fantasy book stronger. 

An author who does this really well is Madeline L'Engle. Her book A Wrinkle in Time is a masterpiece because she weaves science fiction together with a real life heroine who is insecure, does not feel pretty and ends up having a real, complicated relationship with Calvin O' Keefe (not just one brimming with sexual tension where the two of them must end up in bed together and that solves all their problems). Susan Cooper also does this well in her series The Dark is Rising. But both of these authors have been largely replaced by contemporary, and to the large part, shoddy, fantasy writing. 

Even Harry Potter, which everyone read and was dazzled by due to its 'realness'- an actual ministry, laws, shady newspaper reporters, a seemingly unloved child- never allowed any of its characters to struggle with an actual diagnosed condition. Harry didn't suffer from depression. He didn't have to see a therapist. He was in the nurse's wing or the hospital pretty frequently, but problems with his mental state? Never. Even after everything he had gone through, all the loss he had suffered. Even after living his whole life with a person whose mission it was to kill him. Tip top mental shape.

If fantasy is, as many authors espouse, their way to enable students and children to interact with the world and find solutions for the monsters that threaten, it isn't enough to equip characters with otherworldly talents, traits or supernatural abilities. These characters should be real in every way, including the toll their actions take on them, including their mental health status and the actions they need to take to be healthy. If YA fantasy wants to aid the battle to help young people feel normal, it needs to focus on more than just gay characters or bullying. It needs to focus on making young people feel like it is okay to seek help when they struggle with their mental states. Otherwise, fantasy just joins the ranks of role models for people that says 'If they could get through all of this and be perfectly fine, no sweat, no therapy, no struggling, just a soulmate who loved them back to health, then I should be able to do it, too.' That message is unhelpful and even dangerous. 

So YA Fantasy authors, be brave. Take the next step. Start making your characters real.

Our kids will thank you for it.

Zero Dark Thirty

I saw "Zero Dark Thirty" tonight. The movie was a cerebral experience for me rather than an emotional one. It reminded me a lot of "Munich."

I found the film to be extremely impressive and very powerful. The message that I walked out with was how appreciative I need to be of my country and of my military.

Back when Obama was running his reelection campaign, he was making much of the fact that he gave the kill order on Osama Bin Laden. I, alongside many other Americans, I would wager, didn't really understand why that was such a big deal. Of course you would give the kill order on a man like that. What's the big deal?

But this film illustrates exactly why that was a big deal. According to the film (and assuming this is true), there was no positive confirmation Osama was even in that compound. It could have been someone high up in Al Quaida, but there was no definitive visual or voacal proof that it was Osama himself. If the operation had gone badly, it could have been publicly embarrassing for America. But Obama gave the kill order even though there wasn't that proof.

For me, the film also showed why we need to value our military. I'm sure a lot of us thought, "Well, it's about time" when they finally caught Osama 10 years later. But what we didn't realize is that there were so many leads, and so many tips, and people who needed to track them all down. People who lost loved ones in the process. People who got burnt out. People who didn't eat or sleep without thinking about this mission, this goal. All kinds of intricate people who were involved in the process until we finally got to the place where we could execute this man.

A lot of people are talking about this film in order to discuss torture and whether or not torture ought to be used. I think that misses the point. Yes, that is one aspect of the film. But that is not the film. The film shows the labyrinth that is created, the intricate ways in which the government worked to piece together the final data as to where Osama was living and how to take him down. Something interesting that one of the main characters pointed out was that they could have taken out the compound with a bomb, but instead they sent in SEALs. People had to risk their lives in order to kill this man- it wasn't just drop-a-bomb-and-be-done.

I was thinking, as I was watching the film, that a movie like this needs to be made about molestation. The Nechemya Weberman case especially came to mind. I can imagine a brilliant screenplay that takes the same concept as this film, which is the number of people needed to fulfill a mission, and uses it to talk about molestation. The film could begin with the girl in counseling at her new high school, her therapist treating her for PTSD. Finally, the girl confesses she was molested and runs out of the room. We then see the girl being evaluated by three separate analysts, each of whom grill her in order to make sure she is telling the truth and not lying. We see the girl decide to accuse Weberman. We see Weberman's supporters threaten the family; we see the repercussions as her family members are kicked out of school. We see the fundraiser held in order to defray Weberman's legal expenses. We see the prosecutor in the case, working tirelessly to try to ensure that this girl's story is heard. We hear the audio of the Satmar Rebbe talking about Dinah and low women. We see the girl in the courtroom, on the stand, see her called up, see the jury's faces, see Weberman's face. We hear from bloggers and news reporters who are covering the case and who have very disparate views. The movie closes after the 'Guilty' verdict, with the girl's face, an expression of triumph and relief. But wait- it's not over yet- there's one more scene where we hear the community talking about how it's anti-Semitism that this verdict got passed, we see the Vaad HaTznius still standing there and we realize nothing has truly changed.

If someone were to make a film like this about molestation, then the audience would finally see what it means to accuse someone, take it all the way to trial, and then get the guilty verdict. They would realize how difficult it is- as difficult, in its own way, as hunting down Osama Bin Laden. They would see the price that is paid, the casualties of daring to make the accusation. And they would walk out of the film changed people, in the same way that I am now so much more appreciative of our military. They would see the strength of the victim, not just the way in which she was harmed. That's what we need to give the viewers- the ability to see how complicated these trials are, in the same way the search for this evil man was.

Video Editing Downloadable/ Cloud-Based Software

I'm hoping Techy people can help me.

I want to assign my students to make a video mashup. But: it's not just resplicing some video clips and adding a song in the background (for example, the way the "Scary Mary" trailer is). I want them to be able to cut and paste different clips from different videos together while blanking out the video's sound, adding in snippets of conversation as audio and also a track/ song in the background.

So in terms of layers we have:

1. Video Layer
2. Audio of numerous different people speaking, all taken from different mp4s or mp3s
3. Different background music tracks that play while all this is going

So far, none of the video platforms that I've seen do this- and I've looked at WeVideo.com and DragOnTape.com and Mozilla Popcorn Maker. Does anyone have any leads about something that could do this and that is relatively intuitive to use?

Religion's Role In Conflating Issues & Labels

Disclaimer: This post is not comprised of personal experiences. I am lucky to have a great husband. The examples provided are drawn from life, but not my life.

Those of you who have studied psychology may be familiar with the terms 'black-and-white-thinking', 'all-or-nothing-thinking' or 'splitting.' The hallmark of this type of thinking is when a person can only see events in their life as wholly a virtue or wholly a vice, wholly good or wholly bad. People who have trouble with this type of thinking will often resort to 'You always' or 'You never' statements. Sometimes these statements have more to do with how the person is feeling at the time than the actual situation.

This is a particular challenge of mine. I have realized over time that I often conflate issues with labels. An issue refers to a particular behavior. A label is a judgement one has made about the behavior and a motivation one has ascribed to the action. It admits for no doubt and is generally immovable and unshakable. 

Suppose you have a loving husband and wife. The wife grew up always seeing her father do the dishes. She comes home from work, where she had a terrible day. She sees her husband sitting at his computer and notes that the dishes are not done. In an exasperated voice she says, "You never do the dishes. This shows me you don't care about me. You're irresponsible and you don't love me."

In that scenario, the wife has:

1) Resorted to black-and-white thinking. She claims the husband never does the dishes.

2) Assumed a motivation. Clearly the reason the husband doesn't do the dishes is because he doesn't really care about her.

3) Given him a label. She's labelled him as 'irresponsible.'

4) Come to a conclusion. Her conclusion is that he doesn't love her.

The question, of course, is whether any of these claims are true. What the wife needs to consider is:

1) Is it true he never does the dishes?

2) Why has he not done the dishes? What is his motivation?

3) Labeling is unhelpful.

4) You can't come to a conclusion until you examine the evidence, and you can't do that until you have a discussion with your spouse.

So in an alternate scenario, the wife might come home and say. "I had a bad day at work today and I am feeling very irritated. I notice that you have not done the dishes. Could you please tell me why you haven't done them?" 

At this point, the wife might be surprised by the answer. It could be that the husband truly is irresponsible or inconsiderate and simply didn't do the dishes because he didn't feel like it. But it could also be that he had a very pressing matter that had to be taken care of right then, and he was planning to do the dishes afterwards. Or maybe he was unaware that this was an expectation that she had of him in the first place. 

Only once the wife understands what has led to this behavior/ issue, can he and she together tackle the root of the problem.

All of this seems very straightforward when you lay it out this way, but to someone who struggles with this, it doesn't come naturally. It takes effort and time to learn how to see from this perspective. Some may be able to accomplish it on their own, and others may benefit from having a life coach or therapist to assist them in learning how to see from this angle.

What I have realized lately is that certain aspects of our community (specifically Orthodox Judaism) do not lead to a healthy separation between issues and labels. Indeed, they even encourage us to conflate them.

I attended a Bais Yaakov. It was not a good experience for me. At that school, we were given a very narrow, limited model of what made for a 'good girl.' A good girl wanted to grow up to support her husband in Kollel. She was completely tznius at all times, didn't talk to boys and didn't ask difficult questions about religion. 

At the same time, we were given a very narrow, limited model of a 'good boy.' A good boy was the top boy. You were looking for someone who was an absolutely brilliant Talmid Chacham. He prefers to spend his time in Beis Midrash, coming up with incredible raayos and chiddushim. He never misses minyan. He goes out of his way to learn with chavrusas and to be kovea itim. If he doesn't fit this model, then perhaps second-best is someone who still always davens with a minyan, is a big baal-chesed and otherwise devotes most of his time to community projects. 

Here's the difficulty. Imagine that you marry someone, and that person has a specific difficulty or issue. To give a simple example, suppose the man you married has difficulty getting up on time for Shacharis. He often misses minyan. If you're a typically raised Bais Yaakov girl, the thought that might flash in your mind is the following: He always misses minyan. This shows me that he doesn't really care about Hashem or Judaism. He also doesn't care about me, because it's embarrassing to me to have a husband who misses minyan. If he really loved me, he would get there on time.

Even worse, Bais Yaakov girls are taught that their sechar (heavenly reward) is directly tied up in ensuring that a man fulfills his heavenly duties. So the girl may think that her husband missing minyan is directly related to her and her well-being. She may at first try sweetly, then slightly more irritatedly and finally angrily to get her husband to daven on time. She may not be interested in the root of the issue or behavior, which may be important when it comes to trying to fix it, but instead simply decides to label him.

Let's say the husband is legitimately struggling with his penchant to be late to minyan. Having a wife who is nagging you and who then ultimately decides that you are worthless because your missing minyan is equivalent to not having true love or fear of God may not only be disheartening but crushing. You may respond to it in a variety of ways, many of them not positive. For example, in order to avoid her negativity, you may start lying to your wife and saying you went to minyan on time when you really didn't. Your wife will find out and will feel betrayed/ hurt. Everything may go downhill from there, because you now have a serious breach of trust.

All this because the wife decided to label rather than addressing the issue. The conversation that really needs to be had is, "I see that getting to minyan is a struggle for you. Can we talk about why?" or alternatively, if you know why, the next question might be, "How can I be helpful to you in this struggle? What do you need to succeed?" But not everyone realizes that an issue or a behavior is not necessarily related to the motivation one thinks it is related to, and thus the label one might ascribe. 

Obviously, the partners need to both be invested in working on problematic behaviors or issues. If something your partner is doing is really not compatible with your value system, and if the person is unwilling to change or to work on the behavior, that can lead to problems in the marriage, as marriages in our community are based on shared values. So it might not be acceptable to you to be married to a man who consistently misses minyan and who sees nothing wrong with this, or who is not interested in working on changing his behavior. But that is different from making the assumption that because someone is struggling with a behavior they therefore deserve a certain label. A person can be a 'good boy' or 'good girl' who has love and fear of God but has some behaviors, habits or issues that need to be worked on. The behavior is not always (possibly even not often) indicative of a greater meaning or statement about the person. 

Honey Love

All my life, I felt like there were invisible rules about life. These were rules I could not quite make out, and that I was afraid of breaking. If I broke them, knowingly or not, bad things would happen. I would fail at life. I would be seen as socially inept. People would find me or my behavior unattractive. In short, there would be major consequences for breaking the invisible rules.

Lately, I've been questioning the invisible rules. The one I've been thinking most about is the rules of love.

As an English major, I've read a lot about love. I've read about dark, possessive, selfish love, like that of Othello or Heathcliff. I've read Lord Byron's poetry, where he puts the woman who walks in beauty on a pedestal; she is untouchable. I've seen teenagers go gaga about the love between Katniss and Peeta in The Hunger Games. I've seen films and TV shows with love scenes that touch me and thrill me. And what I've always done is compared myself to all of it.

Love, I thought, should be a violent, all-encompassing feeling that leaves me wounded and wanting more. It needs to be a love for the ages, a love that devils my mind. It needs to be a love to match all the love scenes in all the books I've ever read. It needs to be a love that sparkles and rages- a love filled with fire, that encompasses the color of desire and that will hold me up if I fall. It needs to be unbreakable and impossible. It needs to grab me by the neck and almost choke me.

If it's not love like that, I thought dismissively, it isn't love. It isn't worthwhile.

So I went searching for that love. I went looking for the violent, feverish, impossible, thrilling love. I wanted the love where I felt bound so tightly that I could never break away.

And I found it. Or at least, I found pieces of it. It colored me, cut me up and spun me out. I was left as fragile as shattered glass in a mirror, spiderwebs of silver pieces that one touch can dislodge.

I looked for love that moved me and I found it. In the way a child looks at its protector. In a person who does a completely selfless act. In people who want to help others grow. That love touched me, but it was like honey spreading through me, slow. It was golden; it was warm. It wasn't the love I wanted; the love I thought I should want.

When I married, I tied myself to a golden love, not a raging love. I found a love that was playful, kind, nurturing and growth-oriented. It was honeyed. And it was frightening. It wasn't what the invisible rules, as I understood them, said I should look for. I was afraid it wouldn't be right, or that I would miss the raging love too much and it would get in my way. I was also afraid that other people on the outside looking in would see me, my marriage and my life and judge it. I was concerned about their perspective.

Sometimes, I'm still afraid. But more often, I realize there are no shoulds. I do not need to live searching for the love I should want, but rather, for the love that works for me. Who I am as a wife and a person need be bound by no shoulds other than the ones my husband and I create. And when I stop a moment and look at my life through another's eyes, I realize some illuminating things.

For one, people see my husband as very romantic. They see our engagement, with his focus on my love for Belle and books, as being the pinnacle of romance. The way my husband celebrates my anniversary and birthday are also, through other people's eyes, very romantic. Some have even used the word 'fairytale' to describe our story. So if I am concerned about other people's perspectives, I need not be.

For another, the only person who could help me grow properly would be a person who understands my many needs: for quiet spaces at times, for time to write, my love of books, my love of children. My husband knows all my loves and encourages them. He also knows the difference between a need and a preference, so he does not need to be afraid to voice his own.

Also, marriages take work. Love is not stagnant. It does not just come and stay; it needs to be built, maintained, recreated at times.

All these things come to my mind when a friend of mine tells me, "The only thing I want is to marry someone who I am really in love with."

What does that mean? I wonder. What does it mean to be really in love with someone? Per my own rules, it only refers to the raging love, in which case, I would not have qualified. Perhaps part of what at least some of us need to work on is discovering the many meanings of love, meanings beyond the conventional, beyond the typical. Meanings that refer, not to society's idea of the femme fatale, the glamorous woman in stilettos and sexy dresses, but to secret, honey love that tucks blankets around the hidden corners of your soul.

Perhaps I'm becoming a bit Nietzschean - or I'm referring to Plato's Forms. All I know is that the words we have, and the images we associate with them, are not enough. There are no shoulds. There are rarely definitions. And we need to create our own meanings for these words, meanings that go beyond those that our culture or society offer us.

The Moonlit Glade: My 24th Birthday Masquerade

It is time for my yearly birthday masquerade. The song this time is "Black Masquerade" by Rainbow (lyrics here). Enjoy.

I am turning....24.



That time of year has come again...
It is my Birthday Masquerade!
That secret night of shadows
Where the hidden things parade
And twirl, and dance, and flit about
Like innumerable Pucks in merry rout

You are invited, one and all
and welcomed to my hidden ball.

To attend, just comment below
And enjoy the lightly scattered snow.
Is it starlight you fancy, or maybe red wine?
Allow me to welcome you and invite you to dine.

We have curious fancies and delicate mixtures
Of gilded candies and chocolate liqueurs.
Tonight we celebrate my birth...
With joy, gladness and much mirth.

Walk in the garden with me, I pray...
Delightful things occur when you lose your way.

Last year's entertainment can be found  here.

The rules, as always, require you to devise an anonymous handle for yourself (comment under an assumed name, not your real one and not that of your blog), create a costume and offer me a gift. The gift does not have to be tangible. Your costumes and gifts should be creative and expressive of various aspects of your personality.

Good Evening, Ladies & Gentlemen. This evening's entertainment takes place in a moonlit glen. The glade is blanketed with velvety grass, and there are little archways, garden walks and pavilions filled with curiosities from around the world. Enjoy your wanderings. The beverages served this evening consist of pressed starlight, raspberry cordial and sparkling pressed lantern-grapes (the kind that are lit with little silver lights from within). The food consists of delicious chocolate brownies, golden apples and a cake that is made out of sugar spun by none other than the Lady of Shallot. Enjoy yourselves...and collect the little golden baubles that sparkle as a souvenir.

Threatening Encounters With Angels

I was learning with my husband and I happened upon an interesting realization. Both Yaakov and Moshe encounter angels in threatening situations, but what transpires is obviously different.

First, let's look at the texts (because, as my husband correctly notes, this is a stretch- the wording is not similar).

Text 1- Jacob

כה  וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב, לְבַדּוֹ; וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ, עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר.	25 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
כו  וַיַּרְא, כִּי לֹא יָכֹל לוֹ, וַיִּגַּע, בְּכַף-יְרֵכוֹ; וַתֵּקַע כַּף-יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב, בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ.	26 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him.
כז  וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי, כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר; וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ, כִּי אִם-בֵּרַכְתָּנִי.	27 And he said: 'Let me go, for the day breaketh.' And he said: 'I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.'
כח  וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, מַה-שְּׁמֶךָ; וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב.	28 And he said unto him: 'What is thy name?' And he said: 'Jacob.'
כט  וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא יַעֲקֹב יֵאָמֵר עוֹד שִׁמְךָ--כִּי, אִם-יִשְׂרָאֵל:  כִּי-שָׂרִיתָ עִם-אֱלֹהִים וְעִם-אֲנָשִׁים, וַתּוּכָל.	29 And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.'
ל  וַיִּשְׁאַל יַעֲקֹב, וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּידָה-נָּא שְׁמֶךָ, וַיֹּאמֶר, לָמָּה זֶּה תִּשְׁאַל לִשְׁמִי; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ, שָׁם.	30 And Jacob asked him, and said: 'Tell me, I pray thee, thy name.' And he said: 'Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?' And he blessed him there.

Text 2- Moshe

כד  וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ, בַּמָּלוֹן; וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ יְהוָה, וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ.	24 And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
כה  וַתִּקַּח צִפֹּרָה צֹר, וַתִּכְרֹת אֶת-עָרְלַת בְּנָהּ, וַתַּגַּע, לְרַגְלָיו; וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי חֲתַן-דָּמִים אַתָּה לִי.	25 Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said: 'Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.'
כו  וַיִּרֶף, מִמֶּנּוּ; אָז, אָמְרָה, חֲתַן דָּמִים, לַמּוּלֹת.  {פ}	26 So He let him alone. Then she said: 'A bridegroom of blood in regard of the circumcision.' {P}

This is very obviously not an exact match or parallel, because the wording is not the same. Elokim is the name of God (or the name that connotes the angel) by Yaakov, whereas Shem Havaya is used by Moshe. But if you look at it beyond the text, not as an exact literary parallel or even as an echo, but as an encounter with an angel that is threatening, it's still very interesting.

Similarities between the Encounters	Differences between the Encounters
*Both Yaakov and Moshe are making their way back to the place they were born from a place where they have stayed-over and acquired a wife (Laban's house/ Yisro's house) *Both Yaakov and Moshe have their wives and families with them *In both scenarios, a threatening angel appears *In both scenarios, the presence of the angel causes something transformative to occur (Yaakov to Yisrael, uncircumcised child to circumcised child) *In both scenarios, the original object of the attack (Yaakov/ Moshe) departs with their life *Per the commentaries, each encounter transpires because the protagonist failed to fulfill his responsibilities. Yaakov did not tithe appropriately and Moshe did not circumcise his child when he stopped over at the hotel.	*In Yaakov's case, he is left alone with his family safe on the other side of the river; in Moshe's case, his wife and child are with him *In one scenario, the angel is only struggling with Yaakov; in the other, the angel desires to kill Moshe * The first transformation takes place because Yaakov requests a blessing; the second transformation takes place because Tzipporah recognizes this angel can only be appeased by the milah taking place *However, Yaakov's thigh is harmed (Gid HaNasheh)

What I find very interesting is that the major difference between the encounters seems to occur due to who is accompanying the protagonist. In Yaakov's case, where he is left alone, he struggles with the angel and prevails, but not totally unharmed. His thigh is touched; he is changed. From then on, he limps.

In contrast to this, because Moshe's wife was with him when this encounter occurred, he had someone else upon whom to rely, someone to help him face the foe. Tzipporah's quick-thinking and understanding of why the angel had come allowed her to save her husband's life. Moshe departs totally unscathed.

Perhaps this is the idea of an ezer k'negdo in action; when the wife appears with her husband, she is able to save him. When she is not with him, even if it is for a good reason (Yaakov wanted to protect his wives and children and therefore made sure they were all safely in camp before returning to the other side of the river), he does not have his quick-thinking other half to aid him in discerning what the angel wants and how to disarm it.

Why did the angel touch Yaakov's thigh vs any other part of his body?

I haven't researched this, but I wonder if perhaps it is an allusion to (as the commentators say) the promise that Yaakov had not fulfilled to tithe his property. In Genesis 24:9 we read:

ט  וַיָּשֶׂם הָעֶבֶד אֶת-יָדוֹ, תַּחַת יֶרֶךְ אַבְרָהָם אֲדֹנָיו; וַיִּשָּׁבַע לוֹ, עַל-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה.

9 And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter.

We generally understand this to mean that the servant swore on a sacred object (in the same way that we take oaths and swear on the Bible), Avraham's milah.

I wonder if perhaps the angel touching Yaakov's thigh was an allusion to promises made and not kept? (Obviously, this doesn't entirely work, because then it would be more appropriate for the angel to have touched Yaakov's milah rather than his thigh).

What I was thinking, though, was that perhaps if Yaakov's wife had been with him, she would have been able to discern the fact that the angel was there because Yaakov had not fulfilled the tithe, could have informed the angel that they would do it right then and perhaps Yaakov's thigh would not have to be harmed. I don't have textual support for this idea, but just thought it might be interesting.

Red & Cerulean Badge of Courage

Today's a DSBD (Damn Sexy Blood Donor) day! I've got a red badge with a cerulean bow gauzing up my arm.

Had an awesome phlebotomist named Nate and an equally awesome screener named Michael, both of whom were entertaining. Michael explained to me that you can't freeze blood because then the cells would burst. It sounded very interesting.

It was a good day.

My Life is Happy!

My sister is engaged to the best guy ever! Mazel Tov, World. *smiles*

Literary Foils: Pairs in Shmuel Aleph

Today I was learning Shmuel with a student when I came to a realization. It gives new meaning to the phrase, "Right in front of my nose."

Elkanah is married to Peninah and Chana.
Eli has two sons, Pinchas and Chofni.

Coincidence that the names start with the same letters? I don't think so! 

These two pairs are literary foils for one another.

This also answers the question asked by a particularly astute student of mine. She was confused as to why the following pasuk shows up in Perek Aleph, when we never hear about these two again until Perek Bet:

ג  וְעָלָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעִירוֹ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה, לְהִשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת וְלִזְבֹּחַ לַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת בְּשִׁלֹה; וְשָׁם שְׁנֵי בְנֵי-עֵלִי, חָפְנִי וּפִנְחָס, כֹּהֲנִים, לַיהוָה.

3 And this man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there priests unto the LORD.

At the time, I just told her that this information is simply there as foreshadowing. It happens to be that Eli goes up to the Mishkan each year, and while he is there, interacts with the two sons of Eli, who are Kohanim. We will hear more about them in the following perek.

But if you understand these two pairs to serve as literary foils to one another, it all makes so much more sense.

To quote Wikipedia, simply for its accessibility, "in fiction, a foil is a character who contrasts with another character (usually the protagonist) in order to highlight particular qualities of the other character. A foil's complementary role may be emphasized by physical characteristics. A foil usually either differs drastically or is extremely similar but with a key difference setting them apart."

In this case, the main distinction that is highlighted has to do with each one of these pairs' relationship to God. But let's look at them a bit more superficially first.

Peninah and Chana	Pinchas and Chofni
* Each receives a portion of meat; Chana receives a double portion *Elkanah does not seem to see what is going on in terms of Peninah's tormenting of Chana; he tries to comfort Chana by saying "Am I not better to you than ten sons?" but does not address the situation *Elkanah does not rebuke Peninah for her behavior towards Chana, possibly because he does not know about it *Chana tells Eli that he should not consider her to be a Bat Belial  *Peninah is eventually punished for her behavior; "the many-sonned woman is bleak and/or childless while the barren woman bears seven" *Per Midrash, Peninah recognizes that she is being punished and begs Chana to pray to save her last remaining two children	* Each receives a portion of meat; they instruct the Na'ar HaKohen to get them triple portions (and/or to take the meat with 3-pronged fork) *Eli does not see the sins of his sons (whether they be the taking of the meat or  the 'sleeping' with the women assembled at the Tent of Meeting); he eventually hears about them *Eli does not rebuke Pinchas & Chofni for their behavior towards Bnei Yisrael (he asks them why they are doing these things, but does not impose actual consequences) *Chofni & Pinchas are considered to be Bnei Belial  *Chofni & Pinchas are eventually punished for their behavior; they die in the same day *Pinchas' wife recognizes they are being punished and names her child Ichabod to represent the fact that once the Aron was stolen, the "glory is departed from Israel"

In these scenarios, the standout role is given to Chana. When Pinchas & Chofni feel like they are not being given their due in the Mishkan, their response is to ignore God (indeed, they are described as 'not knowing God') and to simply take what they want for themselves, whether that means taking more than they are permitted, taking too early or sleeping with women/ delaying the women's sacrifices. Similarly, when Peninah feels that Chana is not acting appropriately, rather than sitting her down and having a conversation with her to that effect, she decides to take matters into her own hands, flaunting her children in front of her and tormenting her, in order to get her to pray (per Midrash).

In contrast to all these people who are taking matters into their own hands, Chana does not take matters into her own hands. She does not start tormenting Peninah back, or play tattletale and tell on her to her husband. Rather, she goes to speak to God. She tells God about all the pain and suffering in her heart, makes Him a promise and implores that He hear her. She is misjudged by Eli, but rather than firing back with venom (as she could have done, having been tutored in this skill by Peninah), she responds by defending herself and explaining that she is not what he thinks, a Bat Belial. Despite all the suffering that she has experienced, she has kept her faith in God and trusts in Him to deliver her and to grant her the child she so desires.

In contrast to everyone else in the narrative, Chana is the one who surrenders to the Almighty. She does not say, as is stated in Deuteronomy 8:17-

יז  וְאָמַרְתָּ, בִּלְבָבֶךָ:  כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי, עָשָׂה לִי אֶת-הַחַיִל הַזֶּה.

17 and thou say in thy heart: 'My power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth.'

Chana understands that the source of children is ultimately not her, but God. Unlike Pinchas and Chofni, who do not understand that the source of their power as Kohanim ultimately stems from God, or Peninah, who does not understand that her children are not hers to keep but can be kept or taken away by God, Chana is the only one who truly understands the concept of the source. Hence her prayer-poem which directly addresses this concept, the concept of the source and the need to surrender to and to turn to that Source for all blessing.

Because Peninah tormented Chana by flaunting her children, she loses them (they die per the Midrash). Because Chofni and Pinchas abused their position as Kohanim, they lose their position (and ultimately die). But because Chana did not do any of this, did not decide to take matters into her own hands by sinking to her rival's level, by becoming a torturer, by giving up her faith in God, or by stealing someone else's child or otherwise doing something forbidden- because she recognized the source- she becomes mother to Shmuel.

It is interesting that both Peninah and Pinchas' wife are the ones mentioned as the ones who learn their lessons too late and who mourn. Peninah loses her children, and Pinchas' wife loses her husband and father-in-law. These two women are clearly meant to parallel one another.

I just think it's so interesting that despite having learned this perek many times, I never saw the fact that the names are deliberately similar until today.

The People Who Forgot Their Roots

It fascinates me that when it comes to fiction or literature, we love 'chosen' people. Harry Potter is 'The Chosen One.' Katniss Everdeen is the 'Mockingjay.' Tris Prior & Four are 'Divergent.' Clary and Jace are 'Shadowhunters.'

And yet, when it comes to real life, we do anything we can to try to suggest that we are not special, are not different, are not chosen.

I'm talking about us in terms of the Jewish people. The Jewish people is chosen by God. We are given a difficult, holy, incredible responsibility. We are chosen, not for what we innately are but for what we have the power to become. We have special talents and special responsibilities. That is what it means, what we mean, when we say we are chosen.

But so many people I know feel like they must apologize for being chosen. Moreover, they must apologize for caring for their family, for their people, for their nation. As Jews, we are one people, we are one nation; our hearts beat as one and we bleed together. Sanctified through the ashes of the crematoria, consecrated through our shared beliefs and the suffering our people has been dealt, all of us who are born as Jews are connected, in an intricate and multifaceted web.

It is shocking to me that gay people have a 'gay pride parade' where they stand up, loud and proud, and announce to the world that they love their identity, but we as Jews are ashamed, cowering and hiding, afraid to say that we either have an identity or that we are proud of it.

To believe I am chosen is not to say that you do not have an important role to play, an important place in this wonderful world. It is to believe that I have a responsibility to my nation, to my people, to God, that you do not necessarily share, a burden that is not yours. Frodo Baggins was the one who had to bear the ring, but in the end, it was Samwise Gamgee who carried Frodo. Those of you who are not Jewish, you are important in my life and I care deeply for you; I believe that you have your own unique role to play in this world, but it is not the same as mine.

And for this I do not apologize.

I do not apologize for caring deep, passionately, unashamedly about my brethren, my family, my nation, the Jews and the Israelis who are currently under fire.

I do not apologize for caring more for them and for their safety than for the evil Hamas terrorists or the people who support them.

And of course I am sorry for those Palestinians who have good hearts and who are caught up in this mess through no fault of their own. But do I feel equally for them? Are they the same to me as my family members, as my brothers and sisters, as my nation? Of course not. Of course I love my father and mother more than I love the average human on the street, even though I do love them. Of course I love Jews and Israelis more. They are my people. They are my nation.

The Palestinians are not.

So to suggest that everything I say must be laced through a carefully politically correct prism and spectrum where the struggling and suffering of Palestinians is equal to that of my Jewish brethren, that I must care equally about both of them- no, that is not my role. Yes, God made every man in His image, and so He cares equally for them all, and so do I, on some level. On some level, but not on the deepest level; if I saw my sister and a neighbor and both were about to be hit by a car, I would save my sister first and I don't apologize for that; she is my sister, blood of my blood, flesh of my flesh and I love her most. Not only- but most.

God has called us and commanded us; He has told us over and over that we are His people, His treasure, His chosen ones, His nation. He has promised that He will comfort us, raise us up, rescue us.

As God says in Isaiah 51-

יב  אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי הוּא, מְנַחֶמְכֶם; מִי-אַתְּ וַתִּירְאִי מֵאֱנוֹשׁ יָמוּת, וּמִבֶּן-אָדָם חָצִיר יִנָּתֵן.

12 I, even I, am He that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou art afraid of man that shall die, and of the son of man that shall be made as grass;

What are you afraid of, o' Israel? Are you afraid of men, who will judge you because you are not politically correct and do not pretend to care for every Palestinian with the same degree of love that you feel towards your Jewish brethren?

Are you afraid of man, whose life is like "the wind that blows, like the flower that fades, like the passing shadow?"

What are you afraid of? Storm the heavenly gates! Cry out for your people, who are sitting in bomb shelters, who are running from rockets! Acknowledge that you are a Jew and that you care for your fellow Jews! Know who you are, know what you stand for and rise up, rise up and say, "I am a Jew and I stand with my fellow Jews; I will pray for them, stand with them and care for them with every breath in my body. I will live with them and die with them and I will not suffer to hear their names uttered in the same sentence with those who live to kill them. I will not have mercy for the murderers and for the victims; we have been baptized in rocket fire, and our cause is righteous. Tzedek, tzedek tirdof, sayeth the Lord."

It is God who has designated us thus; it is God who made us chosen, made us family and it is our job to cry out for and support our family. Let us ensure that we know who we are, that we do not forget who we are, and that we work to protect those we love.