Evidence: IHH Leader Urges Men to Throw Israelis Overboard 30May2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
In this footage, taken on board the Mavi Marmari on 30May2010, IHH leader Bulent Yildirim clearly instructs his followers to throw the Israeli commandos overboard when they land on the ship. His speech was made in Turkish and repeated in Arabic by a translator.
“The Love you Take”
BATTLE OF THE BRITSWhat a dilemma! I almost went another route in deciding which “suitable secular citation” would occupy the headlining spot above. But in the end, it was hard to Beat the Beatles, so I decided to give them center stage. Nevertheless, the runner-up quote – also articulated by a prominent British chap – is worth mentioning here as well, as it eloquently echoes an essential theme in this week’s Portion: the great Winston Churchill said that “We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” TZEDAKA & BOLSTERING OUR BANK ACCOUNTSBoth of these ideas mirror a fundamental principle regarding Tzedaka[2] gleaned from our Torah Portion. G-d instructs the Jews to take a donation for the building of the Tabernacle. Since it is clear that He is directing the Jews to give a donation, why use the strange language “take” a donation? By employing this terminology, the Torah is offering us an important insight: when we give to someone else, we are also “taking” on behalf of ourselves. In fact, Jewish wisdom teaches that givers ultimately gain MORE from giving than their recipients gain from receiving! True, we are ideally supposed to give based on pure and altruistic motives. But for the times that we can’t seem to summon up the purest intentions, it’s helpful to be aware of the rewards so that we’ll continue doing the right thing (in keeping with the Torah principle “Lo Lishmah, Bo Lishmah”: do the right thing even when you’re “not purely motivated”, and eventually the “pure motivations will come”). Jewish sources tell us that some of the personal benefits of giving accrue in the here and now! Aside from the good feelings that come along with generous actions, we are even told that charity can help bolster our bank accounts (which leads to the ironic Jewish idea that when we are having financial difficulties, one of the remedies may very well be to give MORE Tzedaka)! In other words, to build off of Churchill’s quote above, we can even help ourselves to make a LIVING by what we give! How? Because at least ten percent[3] of the money we are entrusted with[4] is supposed to be channeled through us and passed on to others as Tzedaka. So when we keep that money – effectively clogging the pipeline – we are blocking new funds from entering into our charge. On the other hand, each time we give Tzedaka, we are allowing new resources to enter the pipeline’s supply station and thereby flow towards our jurisdiction[5]. YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU???Have you ever heard the phrase “you can’t take it with you”? Is it true? Let’s briefly examine this idea wearing our Jew lenses: is it possible to have money and valuables buried with us in our graves? Sure! Will they be of any use to us on our next leg of the journey?[6] Surely not! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we can’t send a wire transfer to the next world, and it won’t help to write ourselves a check to cash (in hopes of depositing it on the other side). Our currency simply has no value in the next world. But fortunately, an awesome transformation takes place when we give Tzedaka: because it’s a Mitzvah, Tzedaka effectively converts our dollars into spiritual currency that has everlasting value in the world to come. The same is true for other Mitzvahs and acts of giving that we perform here: they are redeemable as priceless eternal rewards (which go infinitely further than frequent flyer miles). So is it true that “you can’t take it with you”? That all depends on what the “it” is. Ironically, the only money we really CAN take with is the money we give away (or use for Mitzvahs/acts of kindness). One woman – who obviously knew this concept well – requested in her Will to be buried not with her money, but with her charitable receipts.[7] Giving provides the ultimate win-win-win scenario: it allows us to help those in need, to bolster our bank accounts, and to “take it with us” in the process. …Which leads us right back to the words of our legendary Fab F our: “and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make”. Have a Wonderful Shabbos! Love, Jon & The Chevra 1. As an aside, I highly recommend viewing the spectacular video of juggling sensation Chris Bliss, as he expressively juggles to the very Beatles medley that our quote is taken from. The clip is 4-plus minutes, and it starts getting unbelievable about 1 or 2 minutes into it. Make sure your volume is up: http://www.sonnyradio.com/ 2. The Hebrew word “Tzedaka” is colloquially translated as “charity” but more accurately understood to mean “righteous justice” (implying that the giving of charity is not an above-and-beyond act of piety, but rather the positive fulfillment of a mandated expectation) 3. This 10% Tzedaka minimum is obviously subject to various calculations and considerations (e.g. whether to use gross or net income figures, which types of charitable causes qualify for the Mitzvah’s fulfillment, etc.). Those interested in learning how to personally apply these considerations can read more and/or consult with an expert in Jewish law (please let me know if you would like me to connect you to those resources). 4. Jewish wisdom teaches that whatever money we “earn” through hard work, skills, and savvy has in actuality – from an ultimate causal standpoint – been rationed to us, in accordance with Divine determinations. It follows that whenever money comes into our charge, it has been divinely ENTRUSTED to us (for judicious safeguarding and distribution). 5. Adapted from the teachings of Rabbi Aaron from Isralight 6. The concept of our future journey – i.e. the Next World – is an under-publicized yet essential principle of Jewish belief 7. From the teachings of Rabbi Avi Geller, from Aish.com |
Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen
Do Not Covet Part 4
As we approach the end of the laws concerning the commandment of ‘Do Not Covet’[1] , it is instructive to summarize and clarify which forms of ‘coveting’ are forbidden and which are permitted.
We noted in the first part in the series that there is no prohibition to merely want someone else’s item.[2] Rather, the word, 'tachmod' implies cajoling, pressuring, or embarrassing someone into selling him something that the owner really did not want to sell.
However, it is also forbidden to think and scheme about how to pressure one's fellow into selling him the item. Thus, even if one only plans how to attain the item in such a fashion and never proceeds, he nonetheless transgresses the Torah commandment of 'loh titaveh' which is stated in the second version of the Ten Commandments.[3]
It is also important to recognize that it is permissible to want the same item as one’s friend, as long as it is not the specific item that his friend owns. For example, Sarah likes Keren’s shoes, plans to buy similar shoes, and does indeed buy such shoes.. This is totally permissible. If, however, Sarah planned how to cajole Keren into selling her the shoes, the she would transgress ‘loh titaveh’. And if she actually succeeded in acquiring the shoes through these methods, then she transgresses ‘loh tachmod’.
In a similar vein, one may ask a Rabbi for a blessing to attain an item that is similar to the one owned by his friend. If, for example, Jon wants a house that is very similar to that of David, then he may ask a Rabbi for a blessing to attain such a house[4].
Finally, it is allowed for one who anticipates receiving gifts on a certain occasion[5] to ask for specific gifts. It would only be forbidden if he pressure someone into giving a specific item that he does not want to part with.
1.‘Loh tachmod’ n Hebrew.
2. Although it is certainly not an attitude that is in line with the Torah outlook, as will be discussed in future articles.
3. Va'eschanan,
4. It should be stressed that perhaps there are more important things that one should ask for a blessing for -such as righteous children and health.
5. Such as a bride and groom, a boy approaching Bar Mitzvo or a girl approaching Bat Mitzvo.
Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen
Do Not Covet Part 4
As we approach the end of the laws concerning the commandment of ‘Do Not Covet’[1] , it is instructive to summarize and clarify which forms of ‘coveting’ are forbidden and which are permitted.
We noted in the first part in the series that there is no prohibition to merely want someone else’s item.[2] Rather, the word, 'tachmod' implies cajoling, pressuring, or embarrassing someone into selling him something that the owner really did not want to sell.
However, it is also forbidden to think and scheme about how to pressure one's fellow into selling him the item. Thus, even if one only plans how to attain the item in such a fashion and never proceeds, he nonetheless transgresses the Torah commandment of 'loh titaveh' which is stated in the second version of the Ten Commandments.[3]
It is also important to recognize that it is permissible to want the same item as one’s friend, as long as it is not the specific item that his friend owns. For example, Sarah likes Keren’s shoes, plans to buy similar shoes, and does indeed buy such shoes.. This is totally permissible. If, however, Sarah planned how to cajole Keren into selling her the shoes, the she would transgress ‘loh titaveh’. And if she actually succeeded in acquiring the shoes through these methods, then she transgresses ‘loh tachmod’.
In a similar vein, one may ask a Rabbi for a blessing to attain an item that is similar to the one owned by his friend. If, for example, Jon wants a house that is very similar to that of David, then he may ask a Rabbi for a blessing to attain such a house[4].
Finally, it is allowed for one who anticipates receiving gifts on a certain occasion[5] to ask for specific gifts. It would only be forbidden if he pressure someone into giving a specific item that he does not want to part with.
1.‘Loh tachmod’ n Hebrew.
2. Although it is certainly not an attitude that is in line with the Torah outlook, as will be discussed in future articles.
3. Va'eschanan,
4. It should be stressed that perhaps there are more important things that one should ask for a blessing for -such as righteous children and health.
5. Such as a bride and groom, a boy approaching Bar Mitzvo or a girl approaching Bat Mitzvo.
Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen
Do Not Covet Part 4
As we approach the end of the laws concerning the commandment of ‘Do Not Covet’[1] , it is instructive to summarize and clarify which forms of ‘coveting’ are forbidden and which are permitted.
We noted in the first part in the series that there is no prohibition to merely want someone else’s item.[2] Rather, the word, 'tachmod' implies cajoling, pressuring, or embarrassing someone into selling him something that the owner really did not want to sell.
However, it is also forbidden to think and scheme about how to pressure one's fellow into selling him the item. Thus, even if one only plans how to attain the item in such a fashion and never proceeds, he nonetheless transgresses the Torah commandment of 'loh titaveh' which is stated in the second version of the Ten Commandments.[3]
It is also important to recognize that it is permissible to want the same item as one’s friend, as long as it is not the specific item that his friend owns. For example, Sarah likes Keren’s shoes, plans to buy similar shoes, and does indeed buy such shoes.. This is totally permissible. If, however, Sarah planned how to cajole Keren into selling her the shoes, the she would transgress ‘loh titaveh’. And if she actually succeeded in acquiring the shoes through these methods, then she transgresses ‘loh tachmod’.
In a similar vein, one may ask a Rabbi for a blessing to attain an item that is similar to the one owned by his friend. If, for example, Jon wants a house that is very similar to that of David, then he may ask a Rabbi for a blessing to attain such a house[4].
Finally, it is allowed for one who anticipates receiving gifts on a certain occasion[5] to ask for specific gifts. It would only be forbidden if he pressure someone into giving a specific item that he does not want to part with.
1.‘Loh tachmod’ n Hebrew.
2. Although it is certainly not an attitude that is in line with the Torah outlook, as will be discussed in future articles.
3. Va'eschanan,
4. It should be stressed that perhaps there are more important things that one should ask for a blessing for -such as righteous children and health.
5. Such as a bride and groom, a boy approaching Bar Mitzvo or a girl approaching Bat Mitzvo.
All rights reserved
On Humility |
 How virtues change! Moses, the greatest hero of Jewish tradition, is described by the Bible as "a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth." By today's standards he was clearly wrongly advised. He should have hired an agent, sharpened up his image, let slip some calculated indiscretions about his conversations with the Almighty and sold his story to the press for a six-figure sum. With any luck, he might have landed up with his own television chat show, dispensing wisdom to those willing to bare their soul to the watching millions. He would have had his fifteen minutes of fame. Instead he had to settle for the lesser consolation of three thousand years of moral influence. Humility is the orphaned virtue of our age. Charles Dickens dealt it a mortal blow in his portrayal of the unctuous Uriah Heep, the man who kept saying, "I am the 'umblest person going." Its demise, though, came a century later with the threatening anonymity of mass culture alongside the loss of neighbourhoods and congregations. A community is a place of friends. Urban society is a landscape of strangers. Yet there is an irrepressible human urge for recognition. So a culture emerged out of the various ways of "making a statement" to people we do not know, but who, we hope, will somehow notice. Beliefs ceased to be things confessed in prayer and became slogans emblazoned on t-shirts. A comprehensive repertoire developed of signalling individuality, from personalized number-plates, to in-your-face dressing, to designer labels worn on the outside, not within. You can trace an entire cultural transformation in the shift from renown to fame to celebrity to being famous for being famous. The creed of our age is, "If you've got it, flaunt it." Humility, being humble, did not stand a chance. This is a shame. Humility -- true humility -- is one of the most expansive and life-enhancing of all virtues. It does not mean undervaluing yourself. It means valuing other people. It signals a certain openness to life's grandeur and the willingness to be surprised, uplifted, by goodness wherever one finds it. I learned the meaning of humility from my late father. He had come over to this country at the age of five, fleeing persecution in Poland. His family was poor and he had to leave school at the age of fourteen to support them. What education he had was largely self-taught. Yet he loved excellence, in whatever field or form it came. He had a passion for classical music and painting, and his taste in literature was impeccable, far better than mine. He was an enthusiast. He had -- and this was what I so cherished in him -- the capacity to admire. That, I think, is what the greater part of humility is, the capacity to be open to something greater than oneself. False humility is the pretence that one is small. True humility is the consciousness of standing in the presence of greatness, which is why it is the virtue of prophets, those who feel most vividly the nearness of G-d. As a young man, full of questions about faith, I travelled to the United States where, I had heard, there were outstanding rabbis. I met many, but I also had the privilege of meeting the greatest Jewish leader of my generation, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Heir to the dynastic leadership of a relatively small group of Jewish mystics, he had escaped from Europe to New York during the Second World War and had turned the tattered remnants of his flock into a worldwide movement. Wherever I travelled, I heard tales of his extraordinary leadership, many verging on the miraculous. He was, I was told, one of the outstanding charismatic leaders of our time. I resolved to meet him if I could. I did, and was utterly surprised. He was certainly not charismatic in any conventional sense. Quiet, self-effacing, understated, one might hardly have noticed him had it not been for the reverence in which he was held by his disciples. That meeting, though, changed my life. He was a world-famous figure. I was an anonymous student from three thousand miles away. Yet in his presence I seemed to be the most important person in the world. He asked me about myself; he listened carefully; he challenged me to become a leader, something I had never contemplated before. Quickly it became clear to me that he believed in me more than I believed in myself. As I left the room, it occurred to me that it had been full of my presence and his absence. Perhaps that is what listening is, considered as a religious act. I then knew that greatness is measured by what we efface ourselves towards. There was no grandeur in his manner; neither was there any false modesty. He was serene, dignified, majestic; a man of transcending humility who gathered you into his embrace and taught you to look up. True virtue never needs to advertise itself. That is why I find the aggressive packaging of personality so sad. It speaks of loneliness, the profound, endemic loneliness of a world without relationships of fidelity and trust. It testifies ultimately to a loss of faith -- a loss of that knowledge, so precious to previous generations, that beyond the visible surfaces of this world is a Presence who knows us, loves us, and takes notice of our deeds. What else, secure in that knowledge, could we need? Time and again, when conducting a funeral or visiting mourners, I discover that the deceased had led a life of generosity and kindness unknown to even close relatives. I came to the conclusion -- one I never dreamed of before I was given this window into private worlds - that the vast majority of saintly or generous acts are done quietly with no desire for public recognition. That is humility, and what a glorious revelation it is of the human spirit. Humility, then, is more than just a virtue: it is a form of perception, a language in which the "I" is silent so that I can hear the "Thou", the unspoken call beneath human speech, the Divine whisper within all that moves, the voice of otherness that calls me to redeem its loneliness with the touch of love. Humility is what opens us to the world. And does it matter that it no longer fits the confines of our age? The truth is that moral beauty, like music, always moves those who can hear beneath the noise. Virtues may be out of fashion, but they are never out of date. The things that call attention to themselves are never interesting for long, which is why our attention span grows shorter by the year. Humility -- the polar opposite of "advertisements for myself" -- never fails to leave its afterglow. We know when we have been in the presence of someone in whom the Divine presence breathes. We feel affirmed, enlarged, and with good reason. For we have met someone who, not taking himself or herself seriously at all, has shown us what it is to take with utmost seriousness that which is not I. |
