On the other hand, in three weeks, we will be reading Parashat Noach, where we learn of the rainbow as a reminder of the Covenant–God’s reminder. When the Holy One needs to be reminded, something must be wrong down here! And, of course, coming as it does hard on the heels of Yom Kippur, this festival of nothing but joy also reminds us of the fragility of the natural world, and our collective failing to be good stewards.

Let us use the turning of the season and the reminder of the Covenant to tote up our environmental misdeeds and make amends in the year to come.

And I suppose this one really does not count…

Very busy with the day job, but hoping to get back here once in a while.

The strategy followed by the Obama administration vis-à-vis the Israeli-Arab conflict and the region is best described as Machievallian liberalism. Right now, he is trying to make the Israelis understand the limits of their power and to force them to make policy choices in response to these constraints. These constraints have in fact always existed, but in the past Israel benefited from subsidies of good will (on the part of the U.S.)  to overcome them. But over time, subsidies of this nature cause inefficiencies and distortions that become unsustainable.

Unsustainable inefficiency. A very good analogy of the status quo. And Amos goes on:

The settlers, for example, who think Israel can do just fine without America, are suffering from delusions of grandeur typical of corporations who have benefited from state largesse for years.

Indeed.

Given that there is only one people, so far as I know, called the people of Israel, and that there is a state called Israel, one might think it was already clear. There is a reason why the modern state established on a part of the ancient territory of Israel was not called something else (perhaps Palestine).

Of course, the issue is over the Palestinians’ “Right of Return,” as an editorial in the Jordianian Al-Arab Al-Yawm said (quoted by Zvi Bar’el in Haaretz):

 A solution to the refugee problem outside of Israel and Israel being defined as a Jewish state means “an intention to exile 1.5 million Palestinians beyond the Green Line.”

Yes, indeed, to institutionalize and normalize the situation in which Arab Palestinians have lived for sixty-some years, turning refugees and exiles into settled citizens of some state other than the State of Israel. The fact is–like it or not–that any settlement will be to complete the population transfer that began with the Israeli war of independence. Population transfers have been a part of the settlements of many post-colonial and post-war conflicts. Just ask the Germans displaced from Poland or the Muslims displaced from India–or, for that matter, Jews displaced from Arab countries. It just does not usually take sixty-some years…

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced he will back a Palestinian state - but only if it is completely demilitarised.

He said a Palestinian state must have no army, no control of its air space and no way of smuggling in weapons.

This would be a homeland in the sense of a tuisland. The latter is an Afrikaans term, by the way. Think Ciskei and Venda. Or Bophuthatswana.

At least the Israeli PM is now out in the open regarding his preferred manner of carving up territory and sovereignty: in the late-apartheid fashion. And, of course, even this is too much to make him a true Nationalist. So much too much that MK Aryeh Eldad, of the National Religious Party, accuses the PM of “converting from his own religion.”

Really–and this is not something I say lightly–only a fascist would consider apartheid-style homelands to be insufficiently nationalist.

Livni references the experience of the Palestinian Territories election of 2006:

A similar question arose before Hamas’s participation in the 2006 Palestinian Authority elections. Then, as Israeli justice minister, I tried in vain to persuade the international community that to promote democracy it was not enough to focus on the technical conduct of elections, it was necessary to insist that those who sought the benefits of the democratic process accepted its underlying principles as well.

At the time, the counterargument was that the very participation in elections would act as a moderating force on extremist groups. With more accountability, such groups would be tempted to abandon their militant approach in favor of a purely political platform.

Livni makes an important, though debateable point:

I believe that democracy is about values before it is about voting. These values must be nurtured within society and integrated into the electoral process itself.

There is a long running debate in the political science literature about whether democracy requires democrats, or creates them. Many scholars–and I tend to count myself among them–see democracy primarily as a set of institutions that govern competition, rather than a set of values. And some of us see those institutions as creating incentives that are self-reinforcing–incentives for, yes, moderation. (We have to admit, however, that our scientific knowledge of when democracy becomes sustainable and reinforcing remains highly incomplete.)

Nonetheless, Livni makes an important point in the piece, in which she recommends that international institutions require renunciation of violence by “extremists” before the latter’s participation in elections is endorsed. The principle is sound, though the implementation is surely fraught with difficulty.

In any case, we should not let Livni’s invocation of the Hamas case go by without remembering that what she calls the counterargument–that participation in elections moderates extremists–was never tested.

One can argue in retrospect that Hamas should not have been eligible to participate in the Palestinian elections or that the elections themselves should never have been allowed–an argument Obama himself claims he made at the time. Yet, once the organization participated and “won,” the response of the world’s and region’s democracies was one clearly guaranteed to prevent any potential moderation from revealing itself.

(I always say that Hamas “won” the elections, because the overlooked story of those elections was that the party backed by the militants managed only 44% of the party vote, a mere 3 percentage points over Fatah, yet won the overwhelming majority of seats due to very badly designed electoral institutions.)

Yet the introduction of the program purported to give an overview of all those who have controlled the land over the centuries. Mentioned were the Canaanites, Philistines, Romans, Turks, British, and the modern State of Israel.

Sad to see Jews not even mentioned early in that sequence, thereby implicitly reinforcing anti-Zionist myths about ‘colonization.’

The question is more than academic around our house, as I am somewhat gluten intolerant (though, thankfully, beer remains OK!). Wheat breads tend to generate undesirable reactions in me such as bloat and tiredness, and it has taken years to figure this out (and some days it seems not yet “figured out,” but that’s a whole other story). Even in its matzah form, the spelt I was eating this Pesach may have been one of the factors behind my unusual tiredness this past week.*

Due to the apparent gluten problem, we have begun (i.e. months ago, before Pesach) having breads made with flours such as rice,  millet,  sorghum, and chickpeas. Of course, yeast is included in the ingredients for these breads, and they “rise” and have a texture like “regular” breads (i.e. those made from wheat, etc.).

In some respects, this is a no-brainer. They are “leavened.” Or are they?

A couple of lines in the Plaut commentary to the Torah leave one wondering. Both appear on p. 411 of the revised edition, in the commentary to Bo, specifically Exodus 12:15, where it says the following about unleavened bread (matzot):

…Jewish tradition prescribes that for its baking only wheat, barley, spelt, rye, or oats are permitted, for they may be leavened. Other species like millet, rice, poppyseed, sesame, or legumes are not to be used in the preparation of matzah, for they decay but do not leaven.

Well, if they can’t be used for matzah because they “do not leaven,” then they should not be prohibited, even in the presence of yeast, right? With all due respects to the ‘fence’  around the Torah, it would seem that the question is the leavening of specific grains, and not the use of yeast with other basic ingredients.

I should note that here and at Exodus 12:19, the word that is translated as “leaven” is se’or, whereas “leavened bread” is, of course, chametz. (Both appear in the same sentence in verse 15.) Regarding the word se’or, there is a fascinating thread at Balashon about the possible connection of this word to ’sour’ and a potential (but ultimately probably not likely) connection between chametz and hummus (see especially the comment thread). As for se’or, my understanding is that se’orim is the word for (certain types of) barley. Of course, if barley ferments (which it does–beer!**), it suggests perhaps that “leaven” is soured barley (as well as closely related grains, e.g. wheat and spelt), but not other grains or grain-like ingredients that don’t sour after contact with water (and yeast). But this resolves nothing, given that there is “beer” made from millet, sorghum, and rice (without any barley or wheat, and hence gluten-free–and shockingly tasty).

And now I have made myself thoroughly hungry and thirsty…

(Regarding oats, if you do not accept them as one of the prohibited leavened products, then presumably you should not use matzah made from them, either.)

To be continued…

___

* Or maybe it was the lack of beer!

** which, perhaps utterly incidentally, is sor in Hungarian, not a language I usually think of having cognates with other European languages (aside from Finnish and Estonian), or Hebrew.

The synagogue was:

formed more than 50 years ago by the daughter of a Baptist preacher at a time when many blacks were rejecting Christianity as a slave religion. The same motivation led many African-Americans to move toward Islam.

Glad to know some moved our way; I was not aware of this movement. The story notes that the congregation has not generally been recognized by what it refers to as the “mainstream” of Judaism.

“What makes somebody Jewish is not the congregation you belong to, but whether you were converted appropriately,” said Jeffrey Gurock, a professor at Yeshiva University, an Orthodox school in New York.

I will not disagree with the point Gurock makes, but will resist his definition of who gets to decide whether someone was “converted appropriately,” as well as the idea presented here as the “mainstream.”

The story also notes that:

Rabbi Capers Funnye, cousin of first lady Michelle Obama, has just started receiving invitations to speak to white congregations. He is chief rabbi of Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in Chicago, one of the largest black synagogues in the country.

It is striking the extent to which the perspective of the black churches tends to resemble the real mainstream of Judaism–the progressives–in its outlook, as is evident in much of the rhetoric of our first African-American President. And the flow of approaches to worship goes both ways, as it should.

 The ceremony [at Beth’el] was a mix of Hebrew readings and shouts of “Hallelujah!” - a worship style typical of African-American churches. The booming music came from what Christians would call a “praise band” - with electric guitars, drums and keyboard. There was a dress code - another unusual tradition for Jews - of blue, silver or white clothing. Bowen’s garb was far from typical for a rabbi. She wore an elaborate, flowing white gown - like a wedding dress - with matching white shawl and a yarmulke.

Welcome to the mainstream, always being fed by new tributaries. Halleluyah, amein!

____

Much,although minor, editing done on 19 April.

Now let’s suppose you regularly eat breads made with some of the above-mentioned, non-prohibited, flours. And, of course, yeast, so that the bread rises.

Is the bread thereby prohibited?

The same question applies to gluten-free beer (made from rice, sorghum, etc.).

I lean ‘yes’–it is ‘fermented’ and sure looks and tastes like the prohibited leavened breads (well, actually, better in some cases–though I would not say that about the beer).

But I’m not sure, given that it is not made of the basic grain ingredients that are the underlying definition of chametz.

___
* And fortunately you follow the 7-day custom, not the 8-day!!