Feliz Janucá

La fiesta de Janucá (en Hebreo חנוכה "dedicación") conmemora la victoria de los Macabeos sobre los ejércitos seléucidas, la liberación de Jerusalén y la rededicación del Templo en el año 165 AEC. Esta fiesta tiene varios niveles de profundidad y varias posibles interpretaciones. Estas son, sin ningún order en particular: a.) Janucá es una fiesta nacional que celebra la independencia de un pueblo, b.) Janucá es una fiesta religiosa que celebra el milagro de la lámpara del Templo que ardieron ocho días con aceite suficiente para uno sólo -este milagro tiene múltiples interpretaciones metafóricas: la luz de la Torá ardiendo en condiciones adversas, etc. c.) Janucá también es una fiesta popular -casi todas las culturas del mundo tienen una fiesta de las luces cerca al solsticio de invierno (la época más oscura del año en el hemisferio norte), los romanos tenían las saturnalias, los colombianos católicos tienen la noche de las velitas y la navidad, los judíos tenemos janucá. Todas estas fiestas, en tanto fiestas populares, tienen en común la esperanza de que la luz brille en la oscuridad, que el invierno se acabe y que pronto la vida renazca. d.) Janucá es una fiesta cultural que celebra la identidad judía. Las reformas seléucidas que llevaron a la revuelta de los macabeos y a la independencia de Judea en 165 AEC, tienen su raiz en la asimilación de ciertas porciones de la población judía al helenismo propagado por los monarcas seléucidas. Janucá fue no sólo una revuelta en contra de los gobernantes griegos y sus costumbres sino también contra la adopción de éstas en vez de las costumbres autóctonas del pueblo. Janucá, en este sentido, es una fiesta que celebra el ser diferente, el tener costumbres únicas por muy poco populares que estas sean. Paradójicamente, janucá -la festividad judía más asimilada y comercializada en este país- es una fiesta que celebra la identidad y el derecho a ser diferente y no asimilarse.
En todo caso, para aquellos que celebran Janucá: ¡Feliz janucá! ¡O חג האורים שמח! Para aquellos que no, espero que sus fiestas hayan sido placenteras y significativas y que celebren un nuevo año lleno de cosas buenas tanto en el plano material como en el espiritual. Por nuestra parte, Mrs. Bloom y yo tendremos la muy interesante experiencia sociológica de pasar la noche de año nuevo en el terminal internacional de JFK vía al terruño. Ya habrá qué contar.

Of Power and Fat

It is said that Hasdai ibn Shaprut [in the illumination], the Jewish doctor, vizier and ambassador of the Ummeyad caliph of Cordoba, Abd'rachman III, traveled once to Christian Spain. His mission there: to cure prince Sancho from his seemingly chronic obesity. Once he succeeded, this healthy young man went on to become King Sancho el Cruel ("the cruel") of Navarra. Apparently back then, as it is today, one could rule and be a bloodthirsty despot but one could not be fat. (Just think that in today's America, President Taft, who rounded the scales at 150 kgs., would never be elected.) Now, I thought Israel was one of the few countries left in the world open minded enough to elect a roundish, plump, prime minister and not make a huge deal about it. I was wrong.

Disclaimer: this post does not in any way endorse Ariel Sharon's candidacy to the Israeli primiership nor is in any way connected to his party Kadima. Conversely, this post was not payed by the Likud or by Avodah.

La gente se burla (en el día más corto del año)

Foto de "El Tiempo", 21 de diciembre 2005

Cuando la gente me viene a visitar a NY se burlan de mí porque yo soy de aquellos que creen que la mejor cosa que uno puede hacer en esta ciudad de mil maravillas y mil planes posibles, incluso antes de pagar cantidades exhorbitantes para ver un show de Broadway o treparse hasta el último piso del Empire State Building, incluso antes de pagar no tan exhorbitantes cantidades de dinero para oir a la NY Philharmonic, o incluso antes de ir a rendir homenaje a John Lennon en Central Park, es cruzar el Brooklyn Bridge en dirección a Manhattan. Desde este centenario gigante (el primer puente de suspensión del mundo) uno puede ver a la Estatua de la Libertad, Ellis Island, y la mole enorme del Distrito Financiero: monumento a la ambición humana y su capacidad para construir. Hoy, gracias al paro de transportes, mucha gente estuvo obligada a mi plan. Aunque no sé si cuando el Brooklyn Bridge se congestiona tanto como Broadway uno pueda parar y ver la Estatua de la Libertad entre los paralelogramos que dibujan las estelas de los barcos y más allá Newark, monstruosa, y más acá, indecisa, una gaviota.

Rant! The Musical!

Estoy en examenes finales. Eso quiere decir que no tendré tiempo para mucho hasta dentro de una semana para postear o para estar ocupado en cosas que no tengan que ver con la academia. Afortunadamente, todo este esfuerzo será recompensado con un delicioso aunque demasiado breve (y aquí uso demasiado en su correcto contexto gramatical) viaje al terruño. Don Bloom y Mrs. Bloom estarán llegando a las Vegas del Zipa el primer día del año entrante. Allá esperamos verlos a todos.

A pesar de no tener tiempo, tengo el deber de llamar la atención sobre este artículo. Ya sabíamos que el presidente de Irán era un demente pero lo que más entristece son los comentarios (el link a la página de comentarios está al final) de los colombianos (mestizos como todo colombiano) defendiendo la barbarie nazi. ¿De dónde sacan tanta bilis estos individuos?

¿Será que Kurt Cobain tenía razón? "Just because you´re paranoid, don´t mean they´re not after you"

Putnam and Plantinga on Religion

If you have an hour to spare, kick back, relax and listen to two philosophical giants talking about religion: Hilary Putnam and Alvin Plantinga. Both philosophers belong, however broadly defined, to the "analytic tradition". Both thinkers are also religious men. Putnam self identifies as a Conservative "observant" Jew. (For the JTS crowd, if we are out to find smart members of our congregations, this is guy is it with a capital I!) Alvin Plantinga is a religious Calvinist but teaches at a Catholic university (Notre Dame). Really juicy stuff! Putnam is the good looking baldy on my left. Plantinga is the dashingly bearded man on my right.

Some, or maybe a lot, about Lot

A while ago, () asked in the Elephant's blog about the Jewish use of text. This is a modest example of a Jewish approach to the biblical narrative using it to write another text. In traditional text, this activity is called midrash. For the moment, let's call this a rationalist sermon.

One of the things really inspires me about the Torah is the ability of the text to say so much using such few words. This week, following the reading cycle, I have gone several times over the story of Lot, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the subsequent incest of the daughters of Lot. The story, with its dramatically comical silences and almost comedia dellarte-like characters has, literally moved me to laugh maniacally in the House of Study (a detail that would not be appreaciated by the Sodomites and the Gomorrites although that is not the funny part). Here is, in short, the background of the story: Lot, the nephew of Abraham, moves to the land of Canaan with him. When trouble arises between the employees of Abraham and the employees of Lot, Abraham gives Lot a choice: he can settle wherever he wants and Abraham will settle elsewhere. Lot moves to the Kikar -the area of the Dead Sea- which at the time was "a land of waters...like the Garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt" (Gen.13.10 - all translations unless specified otherwise are from the JPS traslation of the Tanakh). Lot choses the fertile valley of the Dead Sea even though "the people of Sodom were evil and sinners before the Lord" (Gen. 13.13). Soon after, he gets entangled in international politics when the kings of the city where he lives decide to stop paying tribute to the Eastern superpowers of the day. The kings, not happy with insurrection, invade the Kikar and kidnap all their inhabitants, among them. Lot. Abraham, then, has to gather a posse to rescue him. Even before the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the personality of Lot emerges clearly: he is a good guy, not to bright, with a penchant for the urban and the superficial. He does not think much in advance or think of the consequences. Unlike the hopeful Abraham who, regardless of the challenges he faces, presents a constant and strong image of the successful patriarch. This, of course, is no coincidence. As with other brother figures in the Bible (Ishmael, Esav, the brothers of Joseph), Lot presents a mirror image of the hero to accentuate his/her virtues. Abraham's patience constrast with Lot's rashness, Abraham's seasoned faith contrasts with Lot's abuse of divine grace.

Hakikar Plain after the little incident with the fire and the brimstone

By the time the text focuses again on Lot, we already know that the city where he lives has been marked for destruction. Unless the angels sent by God can find the ten righteous men bargained by Abraham, Lot´s urban lifestyle is about to be utterly destroyed. Lot is sitting at the gate of the city of Sodom (not a very nice place to be after dark) and he sees the angels of God coming into the city. In the same way that Abraham does in the previous chapter (18), Lot tries to be hospitable. The angels decline but Lot wants things to go his way and annoys the angels until they the accept to go to his house (ויפצר בם מאד). However, when they get home, unlike Abraham who offers the angels meat, cheese and cakes, Lot has nothing to feed them but Matza (unleavened bread), which -as those of you who have endured Pesach know- is not precisely the greatest food in the universe. Good intentions are wonderful but without preparation (or intelligence) they lead to disappointment: a lesson often repeated (literally) in the flesh of Lot.
Disaster strikes! All the people of Sodom gather in front of the house and demand that Lot deliver the strangers. Lot, once again full of great intentions, comes out to deal with the problem, bravely (or irrationally) closing the door after himself. Suddenly, without a clue of how to deal with an angry mass, he tries to reason with them. "And Lot said, 'Oh brothers please do not do this evil thing!'" (Gen 19.7) When they do not react, he offers them the unbealievable: "I have two daughters who have not known man, take them and do to them whatever you want, just do not hurt these men..." (Gen 19.8) Lot's lack of foresight eventually makes him offer more than he was willing to do in the first place; a detail the text poignantly volunteers in the voice of the angry mob "Now we will do more evil unto you than unto them" (Gen 13.9) The text, then, in a turn of toungue in cheek literary genius turns the language of Lot against him: (ויפצרו באיש בלוט מאד) literally the same words used to describe Lot's nudging of the angels. A crude translation would be "and they pressed on the man on Lot a lot". Why suddenly mention Lot's humanity? Because, just in the way that Lot's insistence eventually convinces the angels to come to his house, the claims and the pleas to Lot's humanity (probably to Lot's fear), get him to leave the door. The text suddenly has the men of Sodom trying to break the door, and Lot -persuaded or ashamed?- is nowhere in front of the door. The text points a finger guiltily at Lot with its silence.
So far Lot is a comical character, a faulty mirror image of Abraham, the contrast against which the merits of the patriarch can be measured against. From this moment on, Lot becomes, in my opinion, a religious antihero. God, through the angels, saves Lot from the angry mob by a shower of sparks which blinds them. From this moment on, Lot will rely on immediate miracles to survive in his life. And, even more, he will start to put his own conditions to the divine. In modern speak, he becomes the "pious" man who prays that his life be improved by an immediate miracle (let's say win the lottery). Once this man has won the lottery, trusting his divine favor, he will keep on relying on immediate providential intervention to solve all the problems of his life. And in the end, like in Lot's case, God's patience will run out.
When the angels tell him that they are going to destroy the city and that he has to leave NOW, Lot hesitates and refuses to go (Gen 19.16). His hesitation is comically portrayed in the traditional cantillation of the Hebrew text with a note called shalshelet which consists of three successive scales up and down, which simulates the sound of someone doubting.

The angels have to DRAG him out of his house with all of family. (Gen 19.17) The angels then order him to flee to the mountains. Lot, already depending on the small miracles to achieve his immediate goals, has the audacity to demand the following from God: "Oh, no my Lord! Please, if you favor your servant, having already shown me so much kindness by saving my life- I cannot flee to the hills, lest disaster overtake me and I die. See, that town there is near enough to flee to; it is such a little place! Let me flee there- it is such a little place- and let my life be saved." (Gen 19.18-20) Lot's whiny insistence on the smallness of the place, on the smallness of the miracle he needs to get his way is almost comical. Especially in the face of the fact that God has told him explicitly that no harm will come to him in the mountains. Yet, Lot must have his little miracle in exactly the way he wants. And God, once more (probably rolling His eyes), accepts.
Nevertheless, once the skies open with fire and brimstone, Lot's luck runs out. His wife is turned into a pillar of salt. The small city to which he has fled is, somehow, unsuitable, and he flees to the mountains (where God told him to go in the first place). There, his daughters -as shortsighted and immediatist as their father- come to believe that the world has been destroyed and despair of ever getting married. Thus, they get silly, shortsighted, blighted Lot drunk not once but twice and have sex with him. From these incestuous unions Moab and Ben Ami, the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites -traditional enemies of the Israelites arise-.

Hendrik Goltzius, Lot and his Daughters

Lot's message for today: a solid religiosity should not rest on miracles. Especially if these miracles are petty and immediate. The fact that we do not win the lottery every time we pray for it does not mean that God does not favor us. Nor does the fact of winning the lottery, present evidence to the contrary. Rabbi David Kimchi, a rationalist philosopher of the 13th century, said: "The pious man does not trust in miracles." Strong faith requires preparation, maturity and especially the ability to put things into perspective and not live, like Lot, from one moment to the other. Now, do not get me wrong, miracles do happen. Although they are, for the most part, an issue of perspective. The ability of witnessing the miraculous in every day causality is what distinguishes the Abrahams from the lot.
The Kirkergaardians out there may take issue with this but this is what blogs are for...

Tyranny 4

Pregunta, desde la bella ciudad de Kyoto, la amiga Lucía:

Cuál es el pilar fundamental de la religión? La doctrina? La fe? No son absurdos/imposibles los estudios místicos?

El pilar básico del judaismo es la práctica. El judaismo al igual que el Islam, más que una religión o un sistema de creencias o de dogmas, se ve a sí mismo como una ley religiosa. En este sentido lo que importa es la ortopraxis (la correcta práctica de las leyes) y no la ortodoxia (la creencia en el sistema apropiado de dogmas). En la Biblia Hebrea no hay ningún mandamiento explícito que diga "crea en x o y". En el Talmud, los rabinos comenzaron a crear una lista pequeña aunque exclusiva de creencias básicas: la divinidad del texto Bíblico, la creencia en el mundo por venir. Sólo durante la edad media, con el advenimiento de la filosofía racionalista judía, y especialmente con Maimónides se comienza a elaborar una lista sistemática de dogmas judíos. No obstante, el énfasis de la religión sigue estando concentrado en la práctica de la ley y de los 613 mandamientos de la Torá.
Ahora, sobre la practicabilidad o imposibilidad de los estudios místicos, este no es el caso. El judaísmo cuenta con una tradición mística bastante rica llamada Kábala. Esta tradición, basada principalmente en métodos místicos de lectura e interpretación del texto bíblico, complementa la observancia de la ley religiosa con ciertos rituales y ciertas interpretaciones que, dicen quienes la practican, tienen repercusiones en el mundo superior (descrito por el "árbol de la vida" en la foto). Por supuesto, como todas las tradiciones místicas, la Kábala pone varias condiciones a aquellos que la practican como, por ejemplo, tener más de cuarenta años, estar casado, etc. Así que, técnicamente, tendré que esperar una década para contarte más sobre el tema.