Para poder ayudar a quienes sufren de ansiedad, es necesario comenzar por entender su mentalidad.
La población mundial puede dividirse en dos clases de personas: las que son ansiosas y las que no lo son. La experiencia interna de un individuo que vive con ansiedad es difícil de comprender, especialmente para aquellos de la otra categoría. Sólo podemos brindar una ayuda útil a nuestros seres queridos que sufren de ansiedad si logramos un entendimiento correcto de lo que es la ansiedad.
Mi esperanza es que la descripción que voy a brindar, basada en mi experiencia en la práctica clínica, provea una base para poder sentir empatía y mantener interacciones que brinden legitimación a aquellos para quienes la ansiedad es un tema.
Posibilidad versus probabilidad
Albert Ellis, el fundador de la terapia racional emotiva conductual, explicó que “la ansiedad, básicamente, es un grupo de sentimientos y tendencias de accion incómodos que te hacen tomar consciencia de que ocurren o es probable que ocurran cosas desagradables (lo que significa cosas que van en contra de tus deseos) y te advierten que es mejor que hagas algo al respecto”.
Cuando los individuos no ansiosos se mueven por la vida, a menudo evalúan la probabilidad de que pueda ocurrir algo peligroso o no deseado. Esto determina tanto respuestas prácticas como emocionales. Si bien a veces esta evaluación es deliberada, a menudo es subconsciente y automática. En base a la información subjetiva obtenida, sea o no precisa, la persona determina el grado de seguridad y luego puede actuar en consecuencia. Si bien en la vida existen posibilidades ilimitadas de resultados, la probabilidad del resultado es lo que determina si la acción se garantiza y el grado en el cual una respuesta es necesaria.
Para alguien que sufre de ansiedad, la capacidad de determinar la probabilidad está mal calibrada. Por esta razón, sus reacciones a ciertas posibilidades pueden no estar en línea con las de los individuos no ansiosos. La película Tonto y retonto (1994) tiene varias escenas que merecen ser citadas, en las que encontré muchas referencias a lo largo de los años. Una escena con gran resonancia y muy relevante para este tema, es un diálogo entre Lloyd Christmas (interpretado por Jim Carrey) y Mary Swanson (interpretada por Lauren Holly) en donde Lloyd se esfuerza por evaluar el potencial de éxito de su cortejo a Mary.
Este es el diálogo:
Lloyd: Quiero hacerte una pregunta directa. Quiero que me des una respuesta sincera… ¿Cuáles son mis posibilidades?
Mary: No muchas.
Lloyd: No muchas, ¿Cómo 1 en 100?
Mary: Más bien diría como una en un millón.
Lloyd: (Tras una larga pausa) ¡Entonces quiere decir que tengo una oportunidad!
Si bien para Lloyd la frase “hay una oportunidad” fue una fuente de emoción y alegría, para individuos con ansiedad “hay una oportunidad” representa una realidad que los llena de temor, miedo y una sensación de inminente fatalidad. Dada la posibilidad, ¿cómo se puede ignorar el potencial? En un nivel emocional, el hecho de que la posibilidad sea remota no ayuda en nada a calmar las preocupaciones. Ellos reaccionan a la posibilidad independientemente de la probabilidad. Esto puede dar como resultado un espiral emocional que, por experiencia, sirve para reforzar la importancia de tomar en serio la posibilidad.
Los niveles de ansiedad tienden a ser proporcionales con la severidad de las consecuencias potenciales. Esto es así incluso cuando el potencial para que se concreten esos resultados sea remoto. Por eso las áreas de salud son por lo general un foco de ansiedad, porque las enfermedades o la muerte son resultados sumamente no deseados. Esto se incrementa exponencialmente cuando hay una gran cantidad de información vaga, conflictiva o contradictoria respecto a los temas de salud (como es el caso con respecto al Covid-19).
Para los individuos religiosos que viven con ansiedad, lo relativo a la práctica religiosa a menudo es una fuente de estrés. Dado que las nociones y las descripciones de castigo y retribución Divinas, o las consecuencias en la otra vida a menudo son ambiguas, especulativas y conflictivas, queda abierta una gran gama de posibilidades. Esto es cierto incluso para alguien con fuertes convicciones religiosas. Su ansiedad en este sentido se debe a la incertidumbre respecto al resultado y no a una deficiencia en la fe. Su respuesta se basa en la regla básica de la respuesta ansiosa: mayor potencial lleva a más ansiedad.
Ayudar sin corregir
Para dar apoyo a un individuo ansioso es necesario comenzar por aceptar una realidad dual: una que pertenece al individuo no ansioso y otra que pertenece a su compañero ansioso. Esto contrasta con la “respuesta de corrección” que se emplea a menudo. Para las personas no ansiosas, la ansiedad de otros se basa en un miedo no fundamentado o una preocupación ilegítima. Dado que en sus mentes esas reacciones se basan en que el individuo ansioso no entiende o malinterpreta la información, el enfoque que se sigue para tratar de ayudarlos a menudo es de naturaleza cognitiva. Específicamente, está guiado por la creencia de que “si le puedo explicar la información real de una forma en que la pueda entender, entonces va a entender que no hay nada de lo que deba preocuparse y en consecuencia ya no va a estar ansioso”.
Este enfoque no sólo es incorrecto, sino que también quita validez a la experiencia del individuo ansioso. Este enfoque niega la legitimidad de sus reacciones (que son correctas en base al foco de esa persona en las posibilidades y no en las probabilidades), comunica una falta de aceptación de su punto de vista y, lo más significativo, expresa falta de empatía por las dificultades y los desafíos emocionales del individuo. Notablemente, estos resultados a menudo no son intencionados, sino que son el resultado de un deseo de ayudar sin entender el problema. Ellos tienden a corregir, basados en su propia realidad, en vez de asistir, basados en la realidad del individuo ansioso.
Proveerle a un individuo apoyo y validación de su experiencia de ansiedad es la base a partir de la cual se le puede brindar más ayuda. Preguntarle: “¿Qué necesitas en este momento?” o “¿Cómo puedo ayudarte?, o simplemente dejar que la persona sepa que “estoy aquí contigo”, brinda mucho consuelo. Al enfrentar pensamientos o sentimientos de impotencia e inminente amargura, saber que uno no está solo tiene un gran impacto. Estar a su lado, en vez de tratar de transportarlo a tu propia realidad, tiene un enorme beneficio.
¿Cómo puedo ayudar?
Pensar en esto lleva un tiempo. Piensa si hay en tu vida alguien que pueda entrar en la categoría de “ansioso”. Reflexiona respecto a cómo te relacionaste con esa persona en el pasado y si es relevante, esfuérzate para cambiar tu respuesta la próxima vez a “¿cómo puedo ayudarte?”.
Si tú eres una persona que lucha con la ansiedad, piensa cómo otros pueden serte útil, para que si te llegan a formular esta pregunta puedas darle una respuesta que realmente pueda ayudarte.
Whether the angels play only Bach, in praising God, I am not quite sure; I am sure, however that “en famille” they play Mozart. Karl Barth[1]
When attending synagogue services around the world, one is often confronted with a lack of religious enthusiasm. In many synagogues, services are heavy and often depressing. It is not always the lack of concentration by the worshippers that make synagogue services unattractive, but the absence of song and passion. It is true that prayer is a most serious undertaking, yet our sages have often emphasized the fact that the opportunity to speak to the Lord of the Universe is a great privilege, which should bring much happiness to man. After all, for humans to converse with their Maker is something that has no logical basis. Who are we to speak to the King of Kings? This is even more surprising when one contemplates the fact that we have the opportunity to praise God with hymns and laudations. As the great German poet Johann Wolfgang Goethe once said, “Wer einen lobt, stellt sich ihm gleich.” (He who praises another person places himself on the other’s level.) And as Aristotle said—probably referring to Plato—“Everyone may criticize him, but who is permitted to praise him?”[2]
Most interesting is the fact that one of the ways we are able to identify the Mashiach is by his capacity and willingness to sing. In the talmudic tractate Sanhedrin (94a), Bar Kapara states that God intended to appoint King Chizkiyahu as the Mashiach, the ultimate redeemer of mankind, but eventually did not.
Chizkiyahu is known as one of the most righteous men the Jewish people has ever seen. He introduced significant religious reforms and was a man of outstanding devotion, committed to the highest level of morality. In fact, he was so successful in promoting Torah study that there was “no boy or girl, no man or woman in the land who was not well-versed in the religious laws of tahara and tuma—purity and impurity!”.
Still, King Chizkiyahu was unable to teach the awe of God to his own son and heir to the throne, Menashe. King Menashe is known for his wickedness, and commentators observe that this was partially due to the fact that his righteous father did not know how to sing, and was therefore unable to inspire him. We can be sure that Menashe was well educated in Jewish learning, but all such learning was academic and frigid, because the warmth of song did not accompany it.
Most telling is that, as the sages inform us, King Chizkiyahu did not sing even after he experienced a great miracle that saved Israel from the hands of the wicked Sancheriv, the Assyrian king.
Being unable to sing is considered by our sages a serious and irreparable weakness that invalidates one from becoming the Mashiach. Indeed, we find that all of King Chizkiyahu’s efforts to encourage Torah learning came to an end after he passed away. There is no future to Jewish education and Judaism without song and passion.
This, however, needs some clarification. What is there in a song, not found in the spoken word, that makes it so crucial to the Jewish tradition?
It may be worthwhile to look at a highly irregular statement by the great rationalist thinker, Rambam. Discussing human reason and prophecy, he writes:
I say there is a limit to human reason, and as long as the soul resides within the body, it cannot grasp what is above nature, for nothing that is immersed in nature can see above it. Reason is limited to the sphere of nature and is unable to understand what is above its limits… Know that there is a level of knowledge that is higher than all philosophy, namely prophecy. Prophecy is a different source and category of knowledge. Proof and examination are inapplicable to it. If prophecy is genuine then it cannot depend on the validation of reason…. Our faith is based on the principle that the words of Moshe are prophecy and therefore beyond the domain of speculation, validation, argument or proof. Reason is inherently unable to pass judgment in the area from which prophecy originates. It would be like trying to put all the water in the world into a little cap.[3]
Music raises the spoken word to a level that touches on prophecy. It gives it a taste of that which is beyond, and transforms it into something untouchable. Just as there is no way to demonstrate the beauty of music to a person who is completely deaf, so is there no way to explain the difference between a spoken word and one which is sung, unless one sings. It lifts a person out of the mundane and gives him a feeling of the imponderable, which is the entrance to joy. It sets the soul in operation and brings us near to the Infinite.
“Some men go on a hunger strike in the prison of the mind, starving for God,” said Heschel.[4] Only song will free them. Prayer is our answer to the inconceivable surprise of living. “To be able to pray is to know how to stand still and to dwell upon a word.”[5] This is true even more when a group of human beings join in communal song.
When our sages inform us that one who is unable to sing cannot be Mashiach, it should be a message to all who want to be religious. Song with passion is crucial while we pray and try to live a meaningful life. We are deeply indebted to Sephardic tradition, Chassidism, and the recent revival of religious Jewish music for once more placing song at the center of modern Jewish life. While there is much more to Judaism than song and music, it is time that synagogue rabbis give this aspect of spiritual expression their devoted attention, teaching members of their communities to surprise themselves at what their souls are able to achieve. It is prayer in the form of song that makes this possible.
Notes:
[1] Karl Barth, international known theologian, 1886-1968, quoted in his obituary, The New York Times, Dec 11, 1968
[2] See Ernest Simon, On the Meaning of Prayer in Understanding Jewish Prayer, editor Jakob J Petuchowski, page 102.
[3] “Letter to Rabbi Chisdai” in Kovetz Teshuvot HaRambam Ve’iggerotav, Abraham Lichtenberg, ed. Leipzig: H.L. Shnoys, 1859. II, pp. 23a-23b).
[4] Abraham Joshua Heschel, Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1976. p. 90.
[5] Abraham Joshua Heschel, Between God and Man, New York: Free Press, 1997. p. 206
How can Hamas and its supporters around the world continue to complain about poverty and misery when new shopping malls and supermarkets filled with clothes, and various types of luxury goods are being opened every few weeks in the Gaza Strip?
These images are also an embarrassment to anti-Israel propagandists seeking to portray a completely different reality of life in the Gaza Strip as part of their campaign to delegitimize Israel and demonize Jews by holding them fully responsible for the “suffering” of Palestinians.
Why are foreign correspondents and Palestinian journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dumping photographic documentation of these sunny, positive developments in the Gaza Strip into the dustbin? Is it because such images do not fit their anti-Israel narrative and agenda?
How can Hamas and its supporters around the world continue to complain about poverty and misery in the Gaza Strip when new shopping malls and supermarkets filled with clothes, and various types of luxury goods are being opened there every few weeks? Pictured: A newly-opened shopping mall in Gaza City on February 22, 2017. (Photo credit should read Mohammed Abed/AFP via Getty Images)
The Palestinian terror group Hamas has warned Palestinians in the Gaza Strip not to publish photos from the Gaza Strip on social media platforms.
In a June 9 statement, the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Interior claimed that “Israeli intelligence agencies have been asking residents of the Gaza Strip — through social media — to use their mobile phones to take pictures of various places in the Gaza Strip.”
Hamas warned Palestinians against complying with the alleged Israeli request and claimed that Israel was using social media accounts to “recruit collaborators and obtain information.”
Hamas added that its security forces were monitoring Israeli and Palestinian social media accounts and would take “legal measures” against Palestinians who interacted with the purported Israeli intelligence agencies.
Is Hamas actually worried that the Israeli security authorities would use the photos to “recruit” informants or that Palestinians might take pictures of its tunnels and rockets? Not exactly.
Hamas is worried that the photos and videos taken by Palestinians would reveal to the world a different reality of the situation in the Gaza Strip — a reality that runs contrary to all the stories and images of “poverty,” “misery” and “suffering” of Palestinians there.
What Hamas seeks to conceal from the world are the shopping malls, supermarkets, fancy restaurants, sleek coffee shops and modern clothing stores that have sprung up in the Gaza Strip in recent years.
Such images are excruciatingly embarrassing for the leaders of Hamas, who want to continue lying with impunity about Palestinians in the Gaza Strip suffering as a result of Israel’s “blockade” on the Hamas-controlled coastal enclave. These images are also an embarrassment to anti-Israel propagandists seeking to portray a completely different reality of life in the Gaza Strip as part of their campaign to delegitimize Israel and demonize Jews by holding them fully responsible for the “suffering” of Palestinians.
The Hamas warning came after several photos and video clips depicting the good life of many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip appeared on a number of social media platforms, particularly Twitter.
One popular Twitter account called, @Imshin, has been disseminating videos, blog spots, and news from the world of the middle-class and wealthy of the Gaza Strip that never makes it into the mainstream media. Relying on videos and photos taken by Palestinians, the account provides unique insight into the comfortable life of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as they engage in shopping sprees and enjoy their outings at swimming pools, upscale restaurants, luxurious hotels and beach resorts.
On June 2, the account featured a post about the Royal House Chalet, south of the University of Gaza — one of the most modern and lavish resorts in the Gaza Strip, fully equipped with an impressive swimming pool and state-of-the-art suites.
Another post features the Viola Restaurant and Café, a popular spot in the Gaza Port famous for its variety of desserts and snacks.
Palestinians planning a barbecue for Thursday night (the last day of work in the week) are invited to purchase all their barbecue supplies at the Care4Mall in the Gaza Strip. Located in the Tal al-Hawa suburb of Gaza City, the mall includes stores for home appliances, food stores and a fast-food court. “We provide all goods and services the citizen needs,” the shopping mall says on its Facebook page. “We strive to achieve customer satisfaction and appreciation by providing competitive prices.”
Ironically, the shopping mall also boasts that among the goods it provides is the Israeli instant coffee brand, Elite’s “Namess”. Apparently, Hamas and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have not heard of (or do not seem to care about) the anti-Israel campaign to boycott Israeli products and manufacturing companies, including the large food company Elite.
In other videos posted on YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, the children of the Gaza Strip are documented purchasing mobile phones and enjoying the taste of various flavors of ice cream and slushies.
One of the popular ice cream businesses is the Kazem Ice Cream shop in the neighborhood of al-Rimal in the Gaza Strip, home to a number of Hamas leaders. Smartphones, including the iPhone 11, the most recent version of Apple devices, are available for sale in supermarkets throughout the Gaza Strip, as recently announced by Metro Market, one of the largest supermarkets in the area.
A few weeks ago, one of the Gaza Strip’s fanciest shopping malls was inaugurated in Nusierat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. The new Al-Danaf Hyper Mall includes a large supermarket where shoppers can purchase various imported goods that are often not even available in Israeli markets.
Earlier this year, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip celebrated the opening of the Deux Fashion clothing store, located on Ahmad Abd al-Aziz Street in Gaza City. The large store offers various clothing brands, mostly imported from Turkey and other countries. “The best place to buy men’s clothes, online or offline, with the highest quality for the best price,” reads the advertisement published on the store’s Facebook page.
These are only a handful of images from the Gaza Strip that make Hamas nervous. How can Hamas continue begging for financial aid from the United Nations and other international humanitarian aid organizations when Palestinians are posting photos families on shopping sprees and children eating ice cream and buying smartphones?
How can Hamas and its supporters around the world continue to complain about poverty and misery when new shopping malls and supermarkets filled with clothes and various types of luxury goods are being opened every few weeks in the Gaza Strip?
Why are foreign correspondents covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ignoring the greener pastures in the Gaza Strip? Why are Palestinian journalists based in the Gaza Strip dumping photographic documentation of these sunny, positive developments in the Gaza Strip into the dustbin? It is because such images do not fit their anti-Israel narrative and agenda.
The foreign and Palestinian journalists are complicit in the Hamas coverup: they want to continue blaming Israel for everything negative that Palestinians encounter. Given the latest Hamas warning, it is only a matter of time before one hears about Palestinians being imprisoned or killed for “betraying” the Palestinian cause by posting photos of the Gaza Strip’s newest version of “the Ritz” and children gleefully licking their multicolored ice-cream cones.
Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.
Caso: El poder de una creencia en una decisión legal
Hace unos meses escuché una anécdota impresionante
Una conocida institución judía en Jerusalén sopesaba la idea de facilitar la azotea de su edificio a una empresa de telefonía celular. La empresa quería instalar allí una antena repetidora de señal móvil y estaba dispuesta a remunerar por ello a la institución. Para llevar a cabo la instalación, la institución eligió informar a los vecinos sobre el asunto para evitar posibles conflictos futuros. Por lo que resolvió no llevar a cabo la instalación sin el consentimiento de los vecinos.
Cuando consultaron a los vecinos, éstos se opusieron rotundamente a la instalación de la antena, pues habían escuchado que la ondas electromagnéticas emitidas por la antena constituyen un peligro para la salud. Por su parte, la institución decidió investigar si había o no un peligro real. Para su sorpresa encontraron que no existen evidencias científicas que indiquen que el campo electromagnético de las antenas sea dañino para la salud. De hecho, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) lleva años indagando y no han podido concluir que las antenas representen un peligro para las poblaciones cercanas, tomando en cuenta la distancia y altura a las que están ubicadas (aquí el informe de la OMS).
En vista de aquello, la institución rápidamente abordó a los vecinos para persuadirlos de aceptar la instalación. Para su sorpresa, los vecinos se mostraron reacios a aceptar los argumentos, continuaron rechazando la propuesta, pues aún sospechaban del posible peligro que conlleva una antena, pese que ello no esté demostrado científicamente.
¿Prevalece la razón?
En la práctica surge la pregunta: ¿Qué hacer? Por un lado, los vecinos no están dispuestos a debatir los hechos concretos y se muestran obstinados en su posición. Por otro lado, la institución tiene un interés concreto en proceder con la instalación, pues el beneficio económico que pueden obtener es muy necesario para sus actividades. ¿Cómo se debe proceder en este caso? ¿La institución tendría derecho a proceder con la instalación, pese a la oposición de los vecinos? ¿Tienen derecho los vecinos a privar el beneficio económico que la institución podrían obtener? ¿Es válida su postura tan subjetiva, la cual omite un análisis de los datos concretos?
R. Itzjak Zilberstein, en su libro Ajat Shaalti3 (pág. 215 – 217) trata un caso similar y, entre sus argumentos, cita una enseñanza de los sabios que afirma que “lo que uno teme, se manifiesta en la realidad” (Nedarim 32 y en Shabat 6:9 del Yerushalmi). Además, cita las palabras del R. Baruj Epstein (1860 – 1941) en su libro Torá Temimá, donde dice: “… es parte de la naturaleza humana, que toda idea en la cual uno cree e invierte su energía, acaba persiguiéndole en la realidad”. Lo impresionante de todo esto es, que se trata de alguien que cree en supersticiones, que en verdad no cuentan con una base real y en las que el judaísmo prohíbe creer. Pese a todo ello, quien invierte su pensamiento y energía en esas ideas, acabará manifestándolas en su vida. En cierto modo, el enfoque de una persona tiene el poder de atraer situaciones a su vida.
El poder de la manifestación
Nuestros Sabios (Makot 10b) enseñan que “por el camino que un hombre desea ir, por allí lo conducen”. Eso significa que el deseo que uno expresa a través de sus pensamientos, palabras y acciones crea una especie de “frecuencia espiritual” capaz de transmitir ese deseo al universo y transformarlo en hechos concretos en la vida. Dios maneja nuestras vidas de acuerdo con la energía que nosotros mismos emitimos, tanto si lo hacemos de forma consciente o no. Hay quienes llaman a este ese fenómeno “ley de la atracción”. Nuestros Sabios se adelantaron y definieron esta ley mucho antes (Véase la explicación del Maarshá, R. Shemuel Eliézer Ídels 1551 – 1631, sobre la enseñanza mencionada). En mi libro, “Propósito” – El eje central de una vida apasionante, hablamos sobre el poder de la mente para la definición del propósito del individuo.
La influencia de la mente sobre el cuerpo y el alma
El Rav Eliyahu Dessler, en su libro Mijtav MeEliyahu (pág. 259) alude a esto, y asegura que las creencias que uno alberga en su mente subconsciente afectan su realidad física. Por ejemplo, la mente tiene el poder de curar una enfermedad o —Dios nos libre— de crearla. Asimismo, las creencias subconscientes afectan el mundo emocional y espiritual de la persona. Uno puede moldear su carácter, si aprende a moldear sus creencias subconscientes.
En cuanto al caso mencionado al principio, supe que las autoridades rabínicas recomendaron a la institución no proceder con la instalación de la antena, pues la creencia colectiva de que ésta constituya un peligro puede provocar daños de salud en las personas de la zona. Y, a pesar de que los daños serían únicamente por la percepción subjetiva de la gente, es preferible evitarlos. ¡Impresionante!
Querido lector, ¿has examinado tus propias creencias? ¿te gustaría crear en tu mente prosperidad y abundancia? ¿Cómo crees que tu vida mejoraría? ¡Te deseo el mayor de los éxitos!
El vandalismo y la venganza no cambia, ni mejora la situación ante los errores cometidos.
Diario Judío México – Casi imposible poder justificar acciones agresivas y destructivas para canalizar el enojo, y la frustración que producen las injusticias o situaciones intolerables. De hecho, tales acciones en realidad son solo un impulso para saciar la amargura y las intenciones personales negadas. No resuelven o mejorar dicha situación.
Siempre puede haber una mejor manera para expresar la molestia que causa el maltrato y la vergüenza por culpa de la humillación o el repruebo.
¿Quién tuvo la culpa? ¿Quién se equívoco? La primera reacción, que la mayoría de las personas tienen cuando se sienten atacados, o ven un error/falta, es: buscar un culpable. Encontrar y señalar rápidamente al malhechor es fácil, cómodo y además limpia la responsabilidad propia.
Desquitarse no solo desempolva la culpa y la incomodidad personal, también, “justifica y limpia la conciencia, evadiendo el compromiso propio ante cualquiera que sea la situación. Así, la persona que encuentra al culpable transporta el enojo y su frustración a el sospechoso o malandrín… Ahora, el enfoque ya no se centra en la acción o el problema, sino que se dirige a la persona que se puede utilizar como blanco de ataque.
Cuando uno culpa, ya no tiene que tomarse el tiempo para ver la raíz del problema, ni siquiera tiene que ver como solucionar efectivamente la cuestión. Puede cómodamente optar por convertirse en una víctima y sufrir o transformarse en un agresor para desquitar su impotencia.
Maltratar, humillar o cómo robar, quemar y destruir establecimientos de personas inocentes solo porque sienten el deber de expresar abiertamente su inconformidad, no soluciona nada. Empeora la situación, creando mayores problemas de los que existían inicialmente.
Culpar es vivir en el pasado y angustiarse por lo que no se puede controlar suponiendo que vendrá futuro peor. Razones que impiden reconocer y aceptar la realidad del presente. Evitando poder tomar responsabilidad y acciones constructivas para que puedan fluir mejores oportunidades.
Cuando uno solo intenta justificar y desaprobar o temer y exagerar lo que no conoce, envenena su realidad, enferma su alma, llenándola de miedo, angustia y dolor. Sin querer, deteriora sus relaciones personales y encuentra refugio en personas que tienen el mismo deseo de vengarse y de hacer el mal.
La situación actual no ayuda, la crisis mundial está afectando el estado de ánimo de la humanidad, los tiempos están difíciles. Las personas se equivocan y hacen tonterías. PERO, de nada sirve echarle más leña al fuego.
Nos tocó vivir con una adversidad desafiante a la que nadie estaba preparado. Pero es la nueva realidad. Aceptarla con sensatez y responsabilidad es la receta para salir adelante sin sufrir más daños colaterales de los que hay.
La vida es un viaje se tiene que aprender a disfrutar con lo bueno, lo malo, lo complicado y lo incierto.
La receta
Vivir con responsabilidad
Ingredientes:
Conciencia – estar consciente de la realidad
Compasión – entender a los demás sin juzgarlos con severidad
Compromiso – obligación personal de ser parte de la solución y no crear más problemas
Integridad – no mezclar, ni aprovechar la situación para sacar ventaja o desquitarse de otros
Objetividad – tener perspectiva, claridad y equilibrio
Afirmación Positiva para ser responsable.
Yo soy responsable por mi bienestar y el cuidado de mi persona. Reconozco que hay situaciones adversas que no puedo controlar. No me sirve de nada encontrar culpables o negar mi posibilidad para intervenir y no agravar el problema. El ser responsable me libera de la culpa y me motiva a salir adelante y me da un mejor sentido de vida.
Aprendiendo de la responsabilidad:
Sentir molestia y frustración no es razón para desquitarse con personas inocentes. Hay que aprender a encontrar la forma de respetar y validar los sentimientos propios sin tener que aventarlos para desahogarse.
Cada persona tiene el poder de contribuir o afectar a las situaciones que suceden. Hay que tomar decisiones que fortalezcan y favorezcan al bienestar y el equilibrio. La decisión es personal y los resultados afectan a muchos.
La energía es una fuerza que se contagia fácilmente. Hay que cuidar las acciones insignificantes, ya que estas se multiplican y crecen rápido. Si uno es positivo, ayuda, calma y mejora el medio ambiente que le rodea, si es negativo…
CULPAR Y BUSCAR VENGANZA NUNCA SOLUCIONA PROBLEMAS, AL CONTRARIO, LOS AGRANDA Y LOS EMPEORA.
Hace poco me tope con un pregunta interesante, ¿es vulnerable un psicólogo a sufrir depresión? Para mi sorpresa, encontré varios estudios sobre el tema. Un estudio dirigido por el Dr. Boris Cyrulnik, quien es director de la Facultad de Estudios Humanos en la Universidad de Tolón, Francia, y director varios equipos de investigación, arrojó que más del 50% de los psicólogos y enfermeros sufren de depresión. Y por si fuera poco, el numero está en aumento. Esto puede compararse, quizás, con un hombre que trabaja como salvavidas en una playa. Debido a su trabajo, éste corre un mayor riesgo de ahogarse, que el que corre un hombre común. Los mismo podríamos decir de un bombero o policía, por un lado, están entrenados para salvar a otros, pero acaban poniéndose en situaciones muy peligrosas.
En casa de herrero…
¿A qué se debe tal fenómeno? ¿Cómo puede alguien que ayuda a otras personas a mejorar su conducta, acabar sufriendo el mismo problema?
El Dr. Cyrulnik sostiene que este fenómeno no ocurre pese a tratarse de personas involucradas en aliviar el dolor ajeno, sino por causa de ello. Estos profesionales dedican su vida a ayudar a otros, pero frecuentemente abandonan el cuidado de ellos mismos. Se hacen tan participes del dolor y el sufrimiento de los demás, que olvidan disfrutar de experiencias propias. Ciertamente, su voluntad de aliviar el dolor ajeno es loable, pero la actividad emocional es tan intensa que puede afectarlos seriamente, a menos que actúen para contrarrestar el peso emocional que conlleva. Por eso, se les aconseja dedicar tiempo para desarrollarse en algún área totalmente diferente que sea estimulante para ellos, como el deporte, el arte, la música o la cocina, en fin, actividades para cultivar sus propios intereses y desarrollo intelectual.
El enfoque judío
Estos datos me llevan a pensar acerca del enfoque que le da el judaísmo a este asunto, ¿qué opina la Torá sobre este conflicto? Nuestros sabios, en Avot (1:14), enseñan: “Si yo no estoy para mí, ¿Quién?”. Eso significa que uno debe hacerse responsable de su propio bienestar físico y emocional. Uno debe saber que así como tiene la responsabilidad de cuidar y ayudar a otros, tiene una responsabilidad no menor de cuidarse y ayudarse a sí mismo. En mi libro, “Propósito” – El eje central de una vida apasionante, expliqué ampliamente cuánto poder se gana cuando uno asume la responsabilidad de su vida emocional.
Una postura interesante sobre esta idea es la del gran Rabi Akiva. Este magnífico líder es conocido por afirmar que “Amar a tu prójimo como a tu mismo es un gran fundamento de la Torá”, pero al mismo tiempo opina que si alguien se ve en medio de una situación de vida y muerte, y cuenta con un único recurso de salvación —por ejemplo una botella de agua en un desierto etc.—, debe usarlo a su favor, aunque ello implique la pérdida de otra persona que lo acompaña, pues “tu propia vida va primero” (véase Baba Metzía 62b). ¡Increíble! ¿Cómo puede R. Akiva sostener una postura tan contradictoria? Por un lado “ama a tu prójimo como a tu mismo” y, por otro, “tu vida va primero” ¿Qué significa esto?
Como a ti mismo
En realidad, la postura de R. Akiva no es contradictoria. Para entenderla hay que enfatizar la segunda parte del versículo “como a ti mismo”. El amor propio y el cuidado de uno es la verdadera base del amor al prójimo y del cumplimiento del propósito individual de vida. Alguien que no expresa amor y comprensión por si mismo, no puede expresarlo a otros. Es indispensable desarrollar esas cualidades con uno mismo, para entonces poder vivir con propósito y amar a otros, como a uno mismo. Para amar a tu prójimo, primero debes cumplir el amor por ti mismo.
Primero, tu máscara de oxígeno
Un ejemplo trivial lo hallamos en las instrucciones de seguridad de los aviones. En caso de una descompresión de cabina, se debe usar la máscara de oxígeno, y, si uno viaja con niños o personas que necesitan asistencia, ¿Qué debe hace? ¿correr a atenderlos? ¡No! primero ocúpate de ti y luego atiéndelos. Para poder cuidar de otros, debemos aprender a cuidar de nosotros mismos. Cuanto mejor estemos nosotros, mejor podremos cuidar de quienes nos necesitan.
El sacrificio femenino
Muchas mujeres, en cierta manera, renuncian a sus propias necesidades y aspiraciones para atender a sus esposos e hijos. Según lo expuesto, esas mujeres están cometiendo un ligero error, pues a la larga pueden acabar agotadas. No digo que descuiden sus hogares para ocuparse de sí mismas —pues anularía la esencia de su verdadero propósito— más bien, deben invertir en su bienestar físico y espiritual para ser mejores madres y esposas y así ocuparse mejor de embellecer sus hogares.
Para que no se depriman
En cuanto al estudio del Dr. Cyrulnik, debemos entender que esos psicólogos o enfermeros ciertamente tienen muy buenas intenciones, pues se avocan a ayudar a quienes sufren, no obstante eso no los exime de nutrir correctamente su personalidad e invertir parte de su tiempo en su propio crecimiento, como parte de su propio equilibrio y armonía.
Querido lector, ¿Cuándo fue la ultima vez que dedicaste tiempo a tu propio cuidado físico y emocional? ¿Cómo crees que se verían beneficiados tus seres queridos, si vives en un estado de crecimiento y desarrollo armonioso? ¡Seguramente te lo agradecerán! Haz la prueba… ¡Éxito!
For modernity, a really influential moment is the year 1205, which saw the emergence of a racialization of Jewish identity or Jewish status in Christian theology and law. In 1205, Pope Innocent III wrote a letter called Etsi Judeaos, in response to a problem in France where the Jews were not behaving in the way that the Pope thought was appropriate. He brought in the biblical commentary idea—that the Jews have been confined to perpetual servitude to Christians because of this alleged crime against Jesus—as a justification for social and legal subordination of Jews to Christians. The idea emerges out of medieval ideas about Jews, earlier Christian ideas about Jews and medieval commentaries on the Bible that use the examples of Ham and Cain and Ishmael to argue that they’re actually allegories signaling the forced submission of Jews to Christians through enslavement, even though those texts in the Hebrew Bible don’t have anything to do with crucifixion or the Jews. The Pope’s letter says that the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified Jesus. It says that Jews should understand that they are slaves rejected by God, and by the effect of their alleged participation in the crucifixion should recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Jesus’ death set free.
This letter was incorporated into the larger code of international church law, which governed all of Western Christianity. It meant that all Jews in all of the areas over which the church had authority were liable to legal punishment if they somehow behaved in a way that put them in a position of power over Christians, and that they were inherently inferior and needed to visibly occupy that inferior status or be forced into it. This resulted in the gradual expulsion of Jews from Western Europe.
Once this construct of inherent hereditary inferiority enters into the ecclesiastical legal system, it can be transferred to other groups. The same idea is used to punish Muslims for the crime of the crucifixion, even though Islam didn’t exist at that time. It is also used to justify the idea of Muslims as slaves, and to justify and describe the relationship of Africans to Christians, even though there were Africans who were already Christian. The curse of Ham is originally developed around Jews, but once there’s expansion into Africa in the 15th century, it translates into justifying the actual enslavement of Africans.
M. Lindsay Kaplan is an English professor at Georgetown University. Her latest book is Figuring Racism in Medieval Christianity.
Neither Jewish law, lore nor history addresses race in any way that can be construed as problematic. In fact, the ancestor of the Jewish people, Shem son of Noah, is described by the midrash as having been black (Pirkei D’Rebbe Eliezer, beginning of Chapter 24). The most fundamental teachings of Judaism clearly dismiss racism altogether, such as “You shall love the stranger like yourself” (Leviticus 19:34), or the reminder in Genesis that all of us—regardless of race, color or belief system—were born of the same mom and dad: Adam and Eve. “Why did God create swarms of bees, prides of lions, herds of deer, schools of fish, and flocks of birds, and only one human couple? So that no one can say to another ‘My ancestry is superior to yours’” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5).
Rabbi Gershon Winkler Walking Stick Foundation Fontana, CA
HUMANIST
The question of Jewish law and racism cannot be separated from that of anti-Semitism. Distrust and hatred of Jews played an important role in the attitudes that Jews formed about others. With our history of suffering, we should not be surprised that our literature (law and lore) records feelings of animosity toward others and even outsized claims of Jewish superiority. Even so, any expressions of hostility sit right alongside higher moral expectations. The Torah repeatedly urges us to engage our empathy, commanding us 36 times to show our concern for strangers among us. Our creation myths and midrash remind us of the common origin of all human beings.
Jewish tradition is old and broad enough to include contradictory teachings; some condone bigotry and racism, others promote solicitude for all people. As Humanistic Jews, we are always delighted to encounter the more enlightened passages and practices. Yet they are not the source of our beliefs. A commitment to furthering human dignity and universal human rights stands at the center of our ethical concerns irrespective of Jewish attitudes from the past.
Rabbi Jeffrey L. Falick Birmingham Temple Congregation for Humanistic Judaism Farmington Hills, MI
RENEWAL
I don’t think racism is a term recognized in Jewish law, although a few remarks in Jewish tradition about people of color have been understood in disparaging ways. More essentially, the Torah insists that we treat both neighbors and strangers with ahavah, love—a recognition that we are in relationship with one another. Jewish law forbids reminding converts to Judaism of their earlier background; we might extrapolate from that to a prohibition on, for example, asking Jews of color in shul whether they are actually Jewish, which seems to go on all the time. The larger question is how Jewish tradition bids us view the relationship between Jews and non-Jews, which can sometimes take on a “racist” or essentialist disparagement of the other. We have in our background both glorious universalist sentiments and virulent hostility to non-Jews. In that we are no different from other religions or cultures; the urge to define “us vs. them” is, ironically, one of the most universal principles of humankind. The contradiction plays out in two books of the Bible—Ezra, which advances a quasi-racial opposition to the non-Jews living in the land of Israel after the Exile, and Ruth, which makes the case for a much more positive view of non-Jews. Nothing keeps one safe from “othering” except perpetual vigilance and a constant choosing of our yetzer ha-tov or good inclination (unity) over our yetzer ha-ra or evil inclination (separation).
Rabbi Gilah Langner Congregation Kol Ami Arlington, VA
RECONSTRUCTIONIST
In 1963 the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. convened a conference on “Religion and Race.” The second speaker was Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who suggested that perhaps the conference should have been called “Religion or Race,” for true religion and racism are antithetical. Racism is a “treacherous denial of the existence of God,” he said.
Judaism’s foundational story is about God’s taking the side of the victims of racism and economic oppression. “At the first Conference on Religion and Race,” Heschel began his speech, “the main participants were Pharaoh and Moses.” Egyptians were racist: Though Joseph was second only to Pharaoh, he ate by himself, “for the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the Egyptians” (Gen. 43:32). It was racism that led to such brutal oppression by Pharaoh that God broke through nature and history to hear the Israelites’ cries. Judaism teaches that God is on the side of those who struggle for freedom; the Torah’s great principle is that every human being is created in the image of God. These are the principles on which all of Judaism rests. Jewish law is and should be an expression of those principles, and therefore I believe that racism is absolutely against Jewish law.
Rabbi Caryn Broitman Martha’s Vinyard Hebrew Center Vineyard Haven, MA
REFORM
The Talmud teaches that all people are descendants of a single person so that no person can say, “My ancestor is greater than yours.” This foundational belief in the equality of all humanity was established in the opening chapters of the Torah. Regardless of whether we believe this creation story, its position as one of the very first lessons of the Torah gives it a place of high priority: All human beings are created equal. This belief in equality compels action in response to discrimination, racism and racial injustice.
In the Reform movement, the work of racial justice reaches back before the civil rights movement. We have an obligation to learn about racial diversity, confront our implicit biases, challenge the deep systemic and cultural sources of those biases and address the racial disparities that plague our society. To create racial justice in America, we must look deeply into and change our own beliefs about our neighbors. And we must change the systems and structures that perpetuate racial injustices. This is not easy work to do. It is our sacred obligation.
Rabbi Dr. Laura Novak Winer Fresno, CA
CONSERVATIVE
The Torah teaches the equality of all human beings created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and is positive toward non-Israelites. Rabbinic literature similarly contains numerous positive statements about gentiles. We can’t deny that there are passages in rabbinic literature, kabbalah and medieval philosophical works that depict gentiles as inferior to Jews and sometimes even as less than human. Some can be explained as normal reactions to the cruel treatment of Jews by non-Jews, be it the Roman Empire, the Church or others. Some, however, go far beyond that, positing an exclusivist theology.
In the 21st century, though, there is only one correct answer to this question: Yes. Leviticus 19 begins, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” The halachic authority Nachmanides (1174-1270) says this means Jews must obey not just the letter but the spirit of the law. The spirit of Torah is clearly conveyed in Genesis 1:27: If all humanity is made in God’s image, then clearly any kind of prejudice or racism is forbidden. Nachmanides introduces the phrase naval b’rshut ha-Torah—being despicable within the permitted boundaries of Torah. Loosely defined, this means that being holy means not engaging in disgusting behaviors that are not specifically forbidden but are not right either.
Rabbi Amy Wallk Katz Temple Beth El Springfield, MA
MODERN ORTHODOX
The Talmud makes clear that every human, as an image of God, is endowed with three intrinsic dignities: infinite value, equality and uniqueness (Sanhedrin 37a). This completely demolishes racism. However, over millennia of gentile persecution, a lot of antagonism crept into Jewish attitudes. Thus, one rabbi in the Talmud lashes out, “You [Jews] are called Adam [that is, the image of God] but idolaters/gentiles are not.” Considering ongoing Christian and Islamic denigration of Jews as less than human, such backlash is understandable. In modern times, though, great rabbis such as Rav Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook in Israel and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in the United States reaffirmed the universal dignity of all people.
Still, narrow-minded, socially isolated fundamentalist Orthodox rabbis often seize upon past texts of anger and rejection and seek to apply them to gentiles today. Recently, Channel 13 in Israel broadcast videotapes revealing that important rabbis at a pre-army Mechina (training program) openly endorsed racism. They claimed that racial theory proved Jewish superiority. They justified permanent annexation of the West Bank on the grounds that the Arabs are an inferior race and would welcome being subservient to Jews. Such comments are especially disgusting coming after the Holocaust and the evidence that racism leads to hatred and genocide. The prophet’s cry “We have one father: One God created all of us” (Malachi 2:10) rebukes such vicious attitudes. Sadly, Orthodoxy has a lot of work to do to root out racist and anti-other attitudes in its religious leadership and culture.
Rabbi Yitzhak Greenberg Riverdale, NY
ORTHODOX
If I had to make a strong halachic argument for some provision attached to one of the preexisting categories of the Torah forbidding racism, I’d be hard pressed. I don’t think I could make the halachic guidelines that plastic. Rabbi Shlomo Luria, nearly 500 years ago, argued that with the exception of great moral deficiencies like murder, stealing and deception, the Torah mostly describes behavior between Jews and relies on secular law for the rest. So it’s not so surprising that there’s no outright prohibition against being a bigot. Nonetheless, I think racism violates some important meta-principles of the Torah, particularly the thinking of Maimonides, for whom there is a 614th commandment, Thou Shalt Not Be an Idiot. Racism is objectionable for two reasons. One is that it’s just stupid. We are taught as Jews to notice differences rather than group things together. Racism is by its nature a failure to take note of the great differences between people within a group, and as such it is intensely anti-Jewish. Second, in practice, it creates a chillul hashem, a desecration of God’s name, when people who are charged with keeping God’s word alive ignore those fundamental distinctions in their dealings with other people.
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein CrossCurrents Los Angeles, CA
CHABAD
As per the Torah, I am a creationist, and thus for me the answer is yes. If we agree that G-d is everything, then He is every color. Anything less would be a limitation, and He is unlimited. One is anti-Semitic not when one dislikes someone Jewish, but when one dislikes them merely because they are Jewish. Likewise, disliking someone of another race because of something they did is one thing; judging them or treating them poorly merely because of their race is racism, upon which the Torah frowns. People of any color may convert to Judaism if they choose to accept the Torah and its guidelines for life. If you believe G-d created and sustains the world and everything in it, then there is no place for hate or discrimination merely because of skin color.
Rabbi Levi Shemtov Vice President, American Friends of Lubavitch Washington, DC
SEPHARDIC
To ask if Jewish law forbids racism is to ask if you have ever read the first chapter of Genesis. In it, the Torah presents the most revolutionary idea of ancient times, which, judging by the xenophobia, racism and bigotry that are still prevalent, remains one many cannot easily digest. That idea is contained in two Hebrew words: B’tselem Elohim, the image of God, and it is very carefully inserted into the larger context of the creation story: “Elohim created man in His image, male and female He created them” (1:27). The Torah emphasizes that the image of God is a concept embedded in men and women equally. The idea is reinforced in Genesis 5:2: “Male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and He named them Adam.” The woman is Adam—created in the image of God—just as the man is.
The message of these verses is much greater than equality between men and women. It is about the equality of all humankind. The binary difference between men and women is one’s first instinctive reaction upon seeing a human being (the inability to clearly define a non-binary person is probably the reason why there is so much bigotry towards them). By equating men and women, the Torah states that the image of God is not expressed physically. Racism is therefore a rejection of the very foundation of the Torah. This is not to say, however, that there are no racist Jews.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are like an ancient puzzle that researchers and scholars are trying to piece together, but multiple obstacles block the way. Now, a new study has suggested a potential aid in finding the way these puzzle pieces fit together: animal DNA from the skins used to make the scrolls.
The 2,000-year-old scrolls are actually represented by more than 25,000 fragments that make up about a thousand ancient manuscripts. These ancient texts include the oldest copies of the Hebrew Bible’s books. The discovery of the scrolls “had an incomparable impact on the historical understanding of Judaism and Christianity,” according to the study.
They were found at different sites in the Judean Desert in Israel and the West Bank leading toward the Dead Sea, largely between 1947 and the 1960s. A large number of them were found in 11 different caves near the Qumran archaeological site, which is along the Dead Sea’s northwest shore. More were found in the ancient fortification of Masada, as well as other sites.
The passage of time and the way they’ve been handled has made them more difficult to study. Many were not excavated in an orderly way to preserve
their composition and have been acquired through antiquity dealers, which makes their origin more difficult to trace.
“The discovery of the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever made,” said Oded Rechavi, study author, molecular biologist and associate professor in the School for Neurobiology, Biochemistry and Biophysics in the George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences and Sagol School of Neuroscience of Tel Aviv University in Israel, in a statement.
Researchers and scholars have attempted to put them together based on visible aspects of the fragments that suggest they are related to each other.
But a team of researchers decided to test the animal skins containing the texts as a way to understand their DNA “fingerprints” and use an analysis similar to forensics to find how the fragments relate to each other. The researchers refer to some of these tiny samples as scroll “dust.” They also tested samples from other leather artifacts.
The study published in the journal Cell on Tuesday.
Sheepskin vs. cow hide: What the differences reveal
The DNA sequences were able to tell them which animals provided specific skins. Many of those they tested came from sheep — a previously unknown fact about the Dead Sea Scrolls. When they found that some fragments came from the same sheep, they reasoned that these pieces may fit together, rather than those from different sheep or even species.
They also analyzed the language on these fragments to see if they would indeed fit together like puzzle pieces.
Two pieces previously thought to belong together were actually made from a sheep and a cow, which caused them to question if the pieces truly “fit.” They belonged to some of the oldest known scrolls representing the book of Jeremiah. Based on their evidence, cows weren’t raised in the Judean desert.
“Analysis of the text found on these Jeremiah pieces suggests that they not only belong to different scrolls, they also represent different versions of the prophetic book,” said Noam Mizrahi, study coauthor and an associate professor in Tel Aviv University’s department of biblical studies. “The fact that the scrolls that are most divergent textually are also made of a different animal species is indicative that they originate at a different provenance.”
This suggests that different versions of the book of Jeremiah existed and circulated at the same time with different wordings.
“This teaches us about the way this prophetic text was read at the time and also holds clues to the process of the text’s evolution,” Rechavi said.
Many scholars have agreed that the scrolls have diverse origins, but this research allows for more pinpointing of which ones were brought in from the outside, and which were produced locally, Mizrahi said.
Another non-biblical work called the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice was found in both Qumran and Masada. The Qumran copies were similar genetically, but the Masada copy was distinct.
“What we learn from the scrolls is probably relevant also to what happened in the country at the time,” Mizrahi said. “As the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice foreshadows revolutionary developments in poetic design and religious thinking, this conclusion has implications for the history of Western mysticism and Jewish liturgy.”
The fragments also suggested a previously unknown source. The DNA evidence of a fragment from the book of Isaiah supported that it came from another site that has yet to be determined.
Scroll DNA could unlock more secrets
“It is remarkable that we were able to retrieve enough authentic ancient animal DNA from some of these 2,000 year old fragments considering the tough history of the animal hides,” Mizrahi told CNN in an email. “They were processed into parchment, used in a rough environment, left for two millennia, and then finally handled by humans again when they were rediscovered.”
The researchers cautioned that DNA evidence, while affording some clarity, can only “reveal part of the picture and not solve all the mysteries,” Rechavi said. Many of the scrolls haven’t been sampled and some won’t be in the near future because it could cause damage.
The research was conducted in cooperation with the Israel Antiquities Authority, official custodian of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Israel, Mizrahi said.
“Our research enabled us to shed new light on many old mysteries basically by allowing the materiality of the scrolls to speak for its own right — and it has surprisingly a lot to tell us,” Mizrahi said. “Each such fragment holds its own riddles, and we plan to investigate many more samples that would allow us to shed light on a variety of enigmatic issues.
When a biblical heroine comports herself differently from our modern expectations of whom we should emulate, is she still a heroine? 3 approaches
The Question
About a year ago, a Midreshet Lindenbaum alumna posed a thought-provoking question to me over WhatsApp about the character of Ruth. Her query unsettled me because it hit on a troubling issue which I didn’t know how to make sense of in a way that would satisfy her or myself. The student wrote that Ruth left her feeling confused. She is extolled for her extreme acts of kindness and self-sacrifice, abandoning her home to cling to her penniless, bereft mother-in-law, selflessly devoting herself to provide sustenance for both of them, and humbly doing anything that might vouchsafe for them a secure future. However, as the student wrote to me, it seems as though Ruth “is so committed to helping Naomi that her own identity is erased, and to me at least it seems to be contrary to the type of person that we’re supposed to strive to be.” In other words, she was asking, Is Ruth really a role model? Is she the type of character we should put on a pedestal for ourselves, our daughters, our students to strive to emulate? Chesed, generosity, self-sacrifice, devotion, and commitment are all laudatory traits, but Ruth seems to take them to extremes, perhaps one might even say unhealthy extremes.
The most disturbing scene in her short, four-chapter scroll, is when Naomi bids her to wash and beautify herself, surreptitiously slip into Boaz’s threshing floor at night, lie down next to him, and submit herself to whatever Boaz will instruct her to do.[1] Surely, Naomi and Ruth must have desperately hoped and prayed for the fortunate ending that in fact transpires, but both of them must have been aware that the provocative scene could easily have ended very differently. Do we seek to become the types of people who would so lose our own sense of identity, dignity, and self-worth that we would meekly acquiesce to be a pawn in such a plot, as Ruth does with her response “כל אשר תאמרי אעשה” – whatever you say, I will do? [2]
Approach #1: Ruth is more self-effacing than we ought to be, yet she remains a role model[3]
The first approach accepts that in fact Ruth has self-effacing qualities that are more extreme than what we should aspire to ourselves; this does not, however, detract from her standing as a heroine and role model. How so?
There are several possible answers. The same student who proposed the question initially herself suggested a particularly insightful one. She pointed out that the megilla opens by highlighting its historical context – “ויהי בימי שפט השפטים” (and it was when the Judges judged) – indicating that this is a critical nugget of information. The era of the Judges was a disastrous one for the Jewish people, steeped in repetitive cycles of idol worship and then oppression by other nations in punishment for their abandonment of God. The most oft-repeated phrase throughout the Book of Judges, the line that best encapsulates the era is “איש הישר בעיניו יעשה” — each person did whatever was right in his own eyes.[4] It was an era marked by selfishness, insularity, and a lack of concern for anyone outside of oneself. In such a time period, there could not have been a more perfect heroine or role model than Ruth.
The Rambam writes in Hilchot De’ot 2:2 that the best method for an individual to correct a character flaw is to go to the opposite extreme. For example, if he suffers from arrogance, writes the Rambam, he “should sit in the least honorable seat and wear worn-out clothes which shame their wearer.” The Rambam explicitly writes that he does not believe it is ideal to subject oneself to humiliation; he recommends it only as a temporary corrective for someone suffering from arrogance. He concludes, “So too should a person behave regarding all character traits. If he is on one extreme he should move to the opposite extreme and accustom himself to such behavior for a good while until he may return to the proper middle path.”
Perhaps Ruth demonstrates to us that the Rambam’s prescription for correcting an individual’s character traits is equally applicable on the national level. As a nation, Bnei Yisrael during Ruth’s time were falling prey to excessive selfishness; Ruth emerged on the scene and modeled unreserved self-sacrifice because that was precisely what was needed as a corrective measure. Ruth’s contemporaries trampled on others’ identities in order to assert their own; Ruth muted her own identity in order to restore Naomi’s.[5] The people at Ruth’s time needed to behave selflessly not merely in appropriate amounts but precisely to Ruth-esque excessive degrees to serve as an antidote to their self-centeredness, and help them eventually achieve the “proper middle path.”[6]
Approach #2: Ruth is a role model of trust and faith
A second approach was suggested to me by a wise mother-in-law,[7] who pointed out that Ruth is not blindly heeding the instructions of just anyone; the disturbing command to seek out Boaz in the middle of the night has been issued by none other than Naomi, whom Ruth has learned to trust deeply and unconditionally through many years of living, breathing, eating, sleeping, suffering, and surviving side-by-side. From all these experiences, Ruth has developed unswerving faith and confidence both in Naomi’s goodness and in her utter devotion to Ruth’s well-being. Within the context of this relationship, Ruth’s blind obedience to Naomi’s plan is transformed from troubling docility to a praiseworthy act of trust and faith. A trusted, beloved parent asking us to embark on a questionable mission or to perform an arduous favor is entirely different than a random stranger requesting the identical thing.
This point resonated deeply with me. Yet, I was still somewhat unsettled, largely because of recent alarming incidents in which trusted figures, including rabbinic ones, have manipulated and abused unsuspecting congregants. Did I really want to convey the message to my students that they should unquestioningly agree to anything a trusted figure in their life asks of them?
A fascinating twist emerges from noting the specific time that Chazal selected for the reading of the Book of Ruth, the holiday of Shavuot. Numerous commentators have pondered the connection between the two.[8] Perhaps the key lies in the fact that it was at Mount Sinai that Am Yisrael declared, “נעשה ונשמע!” – we will do and we will hear, placing submission to God’s will prior to, and not predicated upon, understanding it. Perhaps Ruth and Noami’s relationship is meant to be a metaphor for our relationship with God. Just as Ruth had developed unwavering trust in Naomi, leading her to ultimately submit to whatever Naomi would suggest, so too had Am Yisrael acquired steadfast faith in God over the course of the Plagues, the Exodus, and the Splitting of the Sea, culminating in their declaration of absolute commitment to His commandments at Mount Sinai. No human being deserves the kind of blind trust that Ruth places in Naomi, but God does. On the holiday of Shavuot when we relive our acceptance of God and His Torah, Ruth is the perfect heroine. Her traits of faith, obedience, and submission are precisely the ones to emulate in the realm of our relationship with our Creator.
Approach #3: Ruth is not as self-effacing as she appears
This final approach goes in a completely different direction than either of the first two. It suggests that a close reading of the text of the Megilla reveals that Ruth is a much stronger, more proactive character than she appears at first glance. First, it is Ruth’s own decision, and her decision alone, to cling so determinedly to Naomi. In fact, Naomi repeatedly attempts to dissuade her, yet Ruth tenaciously holds fast.
More significantly, a neighbor of mine, Micah Gimpel, suggested the following fascinating read: The most disturbing scene of the Megilla is Ruth’s rendezvous with Boaz on his threshing floor. There are many troubling aspects[9] but for our purposes, the most problematic is Ruth’s obedient acquiescence to be a pawn in such a potentially humiliating, degrading plot. Wouldn’t we want to teach our daughters and students to have the confidence and self-respect to resolutely refuse to participate in such a plan? How can we possibly view Ruth as a heroine and role model?
What Micah pointed out is that Ruth may not be as passive and docile as she appears. When Naomi describes the plan, she essentially instructs Ruth to be merely a puppet, first her own and then Boaz’s, with no agency of her own. Naomi directs her to bathe, anoint, dress attractively, descend to the threshing floor, lie down next to the satiated and perhaps inebriated Boaz, uncover his feet, and then await his instructions for what to do next. In other words, in Naomi’s plan, Ruth is to pass directly from following her (Naomi’s) explicit, detailed instructions to following Boaz’s without a moment to think or act on her own. And Ruth dutifully assents, “כל אשר תאמרי אעשה” – all that you say I will do.[10]
Everything begins exactly according to plan. Verse 5 informs us, “ותעש ככל אשר צותה חמותה” – Ruth does everything that her mother-in-law commanded her. She goes down to Boaz’s threshing floor, uncovers his feet, and lies down beside him to await the unfolding of events. Boaz in fact awakens and is shocked to discover a woman at his feet. He inquires as to her identity, and Ruth responds, “אנכי רות אמתך” – I am Ruth your maidservant. What happens next is the critical turning point. According to Naomi’s plan, Ruth ought to be silent at this point and await Boaz’s instructions. But that is not what Ruth does! She continues speaking, and seizes the opportunity to voice her own hope, nay her own demand: “ופרשת כנפך על אמתך כי גואל אתה” – spread your wing over your maidservant for you are a redeemer. Rather than silently, passively await Boaz’s response to discovering a woman at his feet as Naomi had instructed her, Ruth veers from the script and takes matters into her own hands, demanding that Boaz do something to protect her and secure her future.[11] Just as Esther has her transformative moment in her megilla when she ceases to follow everyone else’s commands[12] and pronounces one of her own,[13] this is Ruth’s moment of transformation.
Precisely at the moment when she might appear weakest and most submissive is exactly the moment when she charts her own future and directs the course of how it will play out. Remarkably, Boaz endorses Ruth’s newfound bold, assertive voice by declaring “ברוכה את לה’ בתי” – blessed are you to Hashem, my daughter. He then completes the role reversal by declaring that he will do all that Ruth says – “כל אשר תאמרי אעשה לך”, a remarkable turnaround from Naomi’s plan in which Ruth was supposed to do all that Boaz instructed.[14] Even more striking is that these words echo almost verbatim the very language with which Ruth initially expressed her submission to Naomi’s plan – “כל אשר תאמרי אעשה”.[15] The fact that Boaz now employs the identical phraseology to affirm his submission to Ruth underscores the stunning reversals that have taken place between the lines of this brilliant megilla.
Conclusion
We have explored three different approaches to understanding why Ruth’s seemingly self-effacing character is in fact a role model: that Ruth was in fact overly meek but she was a role model and corrective for her specific era; that Ruth’s blind faith in Naomi models for us the kind of deep trust and obedience we should strive to develop in our relationship with God (perhaps other trusted figures in our life as well); and that a close read indicates that Ruth is in truth a much more assertive character than she appears. Whichever approach resonates most with you, I hope you feel as I do – that delving into the character of Ruth has enriched and deepened my appreciation of her, her megilla, and the myriad lessons hidden within its four chapters.
—
[1] “ורחצת וסכת ושמת שמלותיך עליך וירדת הגורן אל תודעי לאיש… ושכבת והוא יגיד לך את אשר תעשין” (רות ג:ג-ד)
[3] In theory, another approach could suggest Ruth is not meant to be a role model at all. Not every character who appears in Tanach is a hero meant to be emulated. However, to me it seems clear that she is portrayed as a positive character from whom we are supposed to learn how to behave ourselves in at least some way. After all, the megilla ends by delineating the direct line of descent from Ruth to King David.
[5] Naomi’s loss of identity is highlighted by her insisting on a name change for herself. As she and Ruth are returning to Israel from the fields of Moav, Naomi tells the townspeople, “אל תקראנה לי נעמי קראן לי מרא כי המר שקי לי מאד” (א:כ) – Do not call me Naomi; call me “Bitterness (Mara)” for God has done bitter things to me. It is incredibly significant then that at the end of the Megilla (4:17), the townspeople proclaim that Ruth’s baby should be to Naomi a “משיב נפש” – restorer of her spirit, and they (the women of the town) are the ones who bestow upon him a name, declaring that a son has been born to Naomi – “ותקראנה לו השכנות שם לאמר ילד בן לנעמי”. Through Ruth and her son, Naomi’s spirit, her name, and her family line have been restored.
[6] Along similar lines, Dr. Yael Ziegler also posited that Ruth’s historical context provides the key, but she focused on Ruth as the prelude to the era of Kings, rather than as an antidote to the period of the Shoftim. She suggested that since monarchs are at such high risk of arrogance and utilizing their power to subjugate others, the Torah inserted the story of Ruth immediately prior to the inception of that era as a powerful message to maintain humility and a deep sense of service to others.
[11] The specific language that Ruth employs amplifies the chutzpah thinly veiled in her request. In their first interaction, Boaz praises Ruth for her devotion to Naomi and blesses her that she should be recompensed by God under whose wings she has sought refuge – “ישלם ה’ פעלך ותהי משכרתך שלמה מעם ה’ אלקי ישראל אשר באת לחסות תחת כנפיו” (ב:יב) . In her transformational moment, Ruth expresses her demand utilizing strikingly similar imagery – “ופרשת כנפך על אמתך” – spread your wing over your maidservant. Her bold message seems to be, “If you really believe I am so praiseworthy, do not leave it to God to protect me under His Divine wings; take action yourself and protect me under yours!”
[14] Interestingly, Megillat Esther contains almost an identical role reversal. Initially, Esther does everything Mordechai commands her, even when she is queen of the land – “ואת מאמר מרדכי אסתר עשה כאשר היתה באמנה אתו” (אסתר ב:כ). Yet, once Esther undergoes her transformation and issues a command to Mordechai, the Megilla relates: “ויעש ככל אשר צותה עליו אסתר” (אסתר ד:יז) – Mordechai did everything Esther commanded him.
ABOUT THE AUTHORDena Freundlich teaches Gemara and Halachah at Midreshet Lindenbaum in Jerusalem. She also teaches Halachah at Midreshet Torah v’Avodah, and has lectured in many schools and institutions on topics related to Tanach, Halacha, and Gemara. Prior to making aliyah in 2010, she served as Talmud Department Chair at Ma’ayanot Yeshiva High School in Teaneck, NJ. She holds a BA in Biology and Jewish Studies from Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women, an MA in Bible from the Bernard Revel Graduate School, and was a member of the first graduating class of YU’s Graduate Program for Advanced Talmudic Studies (GPATS). She lives in Efrat with her 3 children.
How can Hamas and its supporters around the world continue to complain about poverty and misery in the Gaza Strip when new shopping malls and supermarkets filled with clothes, and various types of luxury goods are being opened there every few weeks? Pictured: A newly-opened shopping mall in Gaza City on February 22, 2017. (Photo credit should read Mohammed Abed/AFP via Getty Images)
Ingredientes:
© Shai Halevi/Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority This is one of the Qumran caves where the Dead Sea Scroll fragments were found.
© Mariana Salzberger/Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority Dead Sea Scroll fragments were found in these clay jars.
Centro Estudios Judaicos del Sur de PR 