5 Reasons why Cristiano Ronaldo is a better footballer than Lionel Messi.

Let me start by saying this: Cristiano Ronaldo has twice been accused of rape. While neither of those accusations ended up in court, this means that he is an alleged rapist, and more than anything else, I believe that we must protect women from rape. All should be done to bring these accusations to court so that justice can be served. Nevertheless, regardless of that issue, I think the footballing career of Cristiano Ronaldo is a separate subject which can be discussed without every element of it being placed in relation to the rape allegation(s). So - of course this is subjective - and also pointless. And of course I am biased. And of course, it is actually just plain wrong to focus even more attention on professional footballers. So with all that out the way, let's continue.

1. On September 1, 2021, Cristiano Ronaldo scored his 110th and 111th International goals becoming outright the world's leading male international goal scorer. He broke a record that most thought could not be broken because it was made up of hat-tricks against Samoa and Micronesia, and goals scored in 32-0 wins. His goals include those scored against the world's best teams. Lionel Messi has scored 76 international goals and is unlikely to score another 35.

2. Ronaldo started off in Portugal but chose a challenge and went to Man United, then Madrid and then Juventus. He won the league in three of the four biggest leagues in the world. He constantly sought new challenges. Messi spent his whole career until this summer in Barcelona and has won nothing with any other club.

3. Until this past summer, Messi had never turned it on for Argentina. For Barcelona he was wonderful, but until this past summer he had never won a trophy with Argentina. And while he has finally won an international trophy, the fact that Argentina have won the Copa America after six attempts with him in the team is simply a reversion to (below) their normal standard. Argentina are expected to win the Copa America at least once every six times, being the second best team on the continent and the tournament being played only between 10 teams. Ronaldo on the other hand has led Portugal to be European Champions (ahead of 55 other teams), for the first time in their history. Argentina had won the Copa America 14 times (more than any other country, even Brazil) before their longest dry spell of 28 years, most of which corresponded with Messi's international career). He also led Portugal to win the inaugural Nations cup and while still a youngster was part of the team to reach the final in 2004.

4. Ronaldo scores when it really matters. Messi is a flat track bully. All 9 of Ronaldo's international hat-tricks have come in competitive games. Only 2 of Messi's 6 international hat-tricks have come in competitive games. In international friendlies, when it barely matters, Ronaldo has scored only 19 goals in 51 matches (a little over once every 3rd game). Messi on the other hand has scored 34 goals in 47 games (about twice as high a conversion rate than Ronaldo in FRIENDLIES). In World cup qualifiers on the other hand, Ronaldo has scored 33 goals in 43 matches (about 3 goals every four matches) while Messi has scored 23 in 51 (less than one every 2 games). While Messi has a higher conversion rate than Ronaldo in league games against the likes of Real Betis and Osasuna and Elche, Ronaldo far outstrips Messi in the Champions league games against the likes of Bayern Munich, Milan, Liverpool and Chelsea.

5. Perhaps most significantly though - more than all the analysis of the statistics is the simple fact that Ronaldo is the product of exceptional hard work (allied with natural athleticism and skill, obviously). Messi on the other hand would never have made it to be a professional footballer if he hadn't been pumped full of human growth hormones by manipulative parents and managers. Yes - Messi has incredible skill, but his fame and fortune is built on the use of drugs. Ronaldo is renowned for staying late in training and obsessively practicing. As someone 10 cm (4 inches) shorter than Leo Messi, I thoroughly resent the idea that Messi's growth hormones were "medicinal". They were an aid to his athleticism, and as such should have been banned. He is not to blame - he was only a kid, but it unquestionably taints his whole career. Would he have been the player he is without them - we don't know, and whether the answer is yes or no - either way, it takes away from his achievement that his performances rely on drugs rather than his own skill and hard work.

For all these reasons, I am convinced that CR7 is a better footballer than Leo Messi, and I think it would be a tragedy if this year, after Ronaldo won the golden boot at the Euros (despite being knocked out in the second round) AND passed the record for the most international goals by a male footballer that he should not win his sixth ballon d'or to take him level with Messi.

Between Metaphor and Metamorphosis: Humanism and Transcendence in Jewish secular thought.

 

Between Metaphor and Metamorphosis:

Humanism and Transcendence in Jewish secular thought.

 

While religion has tended to attract scorn and criticism from many secular thinkers, it has also brought a kind of positive envy from others. The writer Alain De Botton, in his work, “Religion for Atheists”, sets out the ways in which Religion can teach secular culture about how to promote the good of society and the welfare of the individual, without any resort to a belief in G?d. De Botton’s approach is not far from what most adherents of “liberal” religion today would identify as their own practice. Certainly the end game is the same – a better, more perfect world. In the liberal Jewish lexicon, this is known as “Tikun Olam”, a slogan which has become ubiquitous and, certainly in the eyes of many critics, clichéd and meaningless. But the essence of this idea is very simple – it is what unites “liberal religion” with the rest of the ideological descendants of Enlightenment philosophy – the simple idea that our purpose in this world is to serve each other and the world – to make the world better. Proponents of Liberal Religion will assert that this service is one and the same as serving G?d, while the secular/atheist understanding posits this purpose as a replacement of traditional religion.

The humanist understanding of the world, which has deeply influenced all liberal religion posits that humanity is at the center of creation and that (whether or not a divine exists), only that which exists within the human realm should determine our actions and our motivations. While many within communities which profess Liberal Religion would argue strongly for the importance of the divine, the vast majority would not disagree with this basic principle: Our actions should be determined by what is in the best interests of humanity. (We shall leave aside for now the more recent development of a greater awareness of our responsibility to other species and the world as a whole – an important extra step, but one which does not fundamentally impact this issue). This secular, humanistic ethic, descended from the thought of Spinoza and Kant;  guides most liberal religious thought on ethics today. In this sense, “Liberal Religion” is much closer to “Secular Ethics” than it is to conservative or fundamentalist religion. Ethically, Conservative, Traditional or Religious communities are Theistic (G?d determines morality) while Liberal Religion and Secular Humanism are Humanistic (Human reason and experience determine morality).

Within this understanding – what is the need for Religion at all? Why do professors of Liberal Religion (those who profess it, not those who research or teach it) need “religion”? And what is “religion” for those whose ethics are not theistic? Within this modern context, it is possible to see that religion was always about far more than belief. It could be argued that without true belief (i.e. without the belief that there really is an omniscient, omnipresent, beneficent, omnipotent G?d), then religion is not religion. In this sense, “Liberal Religion” would be oxymoronic. But if we accept that religion was a machine of many parts – belief, ethics, practice, tradition, literature, ritual, community, etc….. then we can posit that religion can continue to function and thrive without one of those parts (even if it must adapt). The leaders of Liberal Religion essentially posit that the absolute faith of the fundamentalist in a G?d who created the world revealed their will to humanity and will judge and redeem humanity towards some endpoint is not necessary for religion to continue to thrive. Nevertheless, unlike the secular humanist, they desire the continuation of religion because, as De Botton points out, while we may have lost the faith in an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Beneficent G?d, Religion can still be effective in framing our lives with meaning and purpose. In order to do this, Liberal Religion essentially takes the beliefs of traditional religion and creates metaphors from them.

The myths, which were understood as history within the context of traditional religion, become narratives or parables of meaning.  G?d goes from the Creator to a creation – a metaphor used to exhort us to our best possible behavior. Instead of “knowing” G?d – feeling G?d’s presence or being aware of (not believing in) G?d’s existence and demands of us, we “posit” G?d. Within the liberal religious paradigm, we “understand” (in a narrative, metaphorical sense) that G?d demands of us ethical behavior, without it being important if there really is a G?d who could make such demands.

The central axis of Liberal Religion, therefore, is Metaphor – but an unadmitted metaphor. The leadership of Liberal Religious communities are unwilling to admit that the G?d of their prayers is not real, or rather that the reality of this G?d is immaterial – what is important in Liberal Religion is not that G?d receives our worship or our sacrifice, but that we are changed by that worship or sacrifice, and in turn we change the communities around us and improve this beleaguered world. For this reason, Liberal Religious leaders who have dared to withdraw the curtain and reveal the metaphor have been largely shunned and exiled. Within the Jewish world, figures such as R. Mordechai Kaplan and R. Sherwin Wine are good examples of leaders who were often personally rejected for dangerously flirting with the idea of trying to wean their congregants from mythology, while the practical ideas that they advanced were widely accepted. Of course, choosing to take that giant leap, and cross that divide is liberating, and the widespread application, particularly of Kaplan’s practical advice to the Jewish community among religious leaders of all denominations shows just how valuable his theological audacity was. By freeing him to re-imagine Jewish community and Jewish creativity, Kaplan’s liberation from the mythological understanding of G-d ended up giving the world Reconstructionism (the idea, rather than the movement), which transformed Jewish community in North America, even while those who apply his thought deny its origin.

But even if Liberal Religion is willing to use G?d as a metaphor, and even if that metaphor is often protected, so that it uses the old mythology, while knowingly rejecting the old presuppositions of that mythology, to truly succeed, Liberal Religion must still acquire one more aspect of traditional religion which requires an old-school belief. Namely, Transcendence. Or Metamorphosis. The end-game of traditional religion and traditional Jewish religious belief is redemption. In Christian terms, this is usually understood as “Salvation”. In Hebrew “Geulah”. Geulah / Redemption is not subject to metaphor since it cannot be truly understood or posited but is a promise of an experience. The Jewish Liberal Theologian Hermann Cohen solved this problem by understanding Geulah, Redemption, or the Messianic Era as a receding horizon – something which was to be strived towards but not actually reached.

In a pre-shoah, pre-climate-crisis  world, where a belief in the progress of humanity towards a collective messianic age could still offer hope, Cohen’s receding horizon could work to grant Liberal religion a solid ground to promote a complete answer to a modern, cynical Jew who still wished to take part in religion without accepting the unacceptable. Cohen’s version of redemption promised a version of transcendence for those who were willing to buy into an optimistic understanding of the future. Between the horror of the shoah and the sobering reality of the climate crisis, no such optimistic understanding of the future exists, and as such, true, full, belief seems very difficult for the non-fundamentalist without offering some option of the transcendental.

For this I suggest a return to the roots of Liberal Religion – humanism. The journey to full humanity, the process of becoming fully human, of becoming the best possible version of ourselves is the religious goal. Metamorphosis is achieved when the process of liberal religion – of using the rituals and traditions of our people allow one to genuinely change oneself. Psychology and the liberation of the self from the “Klipa” (a Kabbalistic concept meaning the untrue shell) are in fact the redemption which is sought in liberal religion. We do not pray for the coming of Messiah or the rebuilding of the third temple, but rather that we should each rise again – within each of us there shall be a resurrection of those parts of us that have died – the desire to see good in the other, the belief in our fellow human beings. Each of us is our own Messiah – within each of us is the potential to redeem ourselves from the malaise of the physical world. Franz Kafka, in his work, Metamorphosis, begins with the image of his hero as a huge bug. This profound image of alienation – of an individual cut off from all that grounds them is an exact critique of the atomized reality of the late 58^th century. The beginning of this Jewish century began with the Shoah, and while the foundation of the state seemed to be an immediate response which restored order to the Jewish world, it was not the solution that many hoped it would be, and rather, we have seen the continuation of many terrible trends which have weakened communities and created a painful reality in which many individuals are more in need of salvation than ever before.

 

And so transcendence can be achieved – not just a posited transcendence forever receding on the horizon, but a bodily transcendence – a feeling of true transformation within the individual – a metamorphosis, achieved by becoming one’s best self. This is achieved through the use of ritual, in community, in reference to the nourishing myths of our tradition. None of these need to be accepted unthinkingly. All can be used while fully engaging our critical faculties, but we also need not block off the possibility of a secularly understood redemption. A redeeming of the individual from pain, sorrow, depression and torpor, not just through ethical acts, but through an honest engagement with the rituals and traditions of the people which can allow for a sense of relief in the individual, a sense of salvation, a metamorphosis.

#Dafyomi Brachot 38a-b Thought for the day

מוציא? המוציא?

Once again - what are we talking about?

Did G?d bring forth bread from the earth? Or DOES G?d bring forth bread from the earth? And what is the difference.

Do we still experience G?d in our lives? Is our relationship to G?d based on our own experience of the divine or on our tradition of remembering a time when that experience was part of the lived experience of our people.

If I struggle to conclude that I experience the divine in my everyday life today, should I revert to the version of the blessing which only attests to a past experience of divine providence? Or is the affirmation of G?d's action in the present a statement of faith that I believe despite the lack of evidence. That I am optimistic that this world has meaning, though it is beyond my perception?

In the end - even attesting to G?d's present in the past is a statement of faith - faith in our ancestors. The truth is that G?d was almost certainly no more present in their lives than in ours. We are not really concerned with whether G?d still acts in the world or only once acted in the world - but rather whether and how WE act. Will we keep searching for the divine? And more importantly will we keep bringing forth food to feed G?d's children who need it. And finally will we make sure that in future generations the earth will still be able to produce food so that someone in the future can wonder whether we experienced the divine, or lived in a G?dless world? If in the future our descendants still have the bread of the earth upon which to say a blessing, we will have brought a little G?dliness to this world.

#Dafyomi Brachot 37a-b Thought for the Day

Are breadcrumbs bread?
When does something cease to be what it is? When is it no longer that which it was when it was whole?
Is the thing broken into its parts no longer that thing?
Is the damaged thing, still the same thing?
Easy and unimportant when talking about things - terribly scary when talking about people. Is the person who no longer has the faculties that make us people still a person? And if so - what is it that makes us people? A crumb must still be bread, or else, nothing is inherently what it always was.

#Dafyomi Brachot 34a-b Thought for the day.

The Gabbai's Curse.

Never did I know that this was in the Talmud:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה — צָרִיךְ לְסָרֵב. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מְסָרֵב — דּוֹמֶה לְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֶלַח. וְאִם מְסָרֵב יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי — דּוֹמֶה לְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁהִקְדִּיחַתּוּ מֶלַח. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה — יְסָרֵב, שְׁנִיָּה — מְהַבְהֵב, שְׁלִישִׁית — פּוֹשֵׁט אֶת רַגְלָיו וְיוֹרֵד.

The mishna teaches that one who replaces a communal prayer leader who erred in the middle of the Amida prayer should not refuse when approached. The Gemara cites the general halakha with regard to proper conduct when one is approached to serve as prayer leader. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who is approached to pass before the ark to serve as prayer leader, for the sake of propriety should refuse, to avoid creating the impression that he is too eager. And if he does not refuse, but jumps at the opportunity, he is like cooked food without salt, which is to say that he acts in bad taste. However, if he refuses too much this is similarly inappropriate, as he is like cooked food that was ruined by too much salt. So how should he act? The appropriate conduct when approached to serve as communal prayer leader is as follows: When approached the first time, one should refuse; the second time, one should vacillate like a wick that has just begun to catch a flame but is not yet burning; and the third time, he should stretch his legs and descend before the ark.

But far more shocking - never did I realise that all the congregants in all the shuls I have ever gabbaied or rabbied have been aware of this piece of Gemarra - because clearly they all know it, and I just need to ask each of them three times to get them to do it. My mistake!

(The gripes and grouches of the annoyed Gabbai who can't get his congregants to volunteer for "honours"). 

#Dafyomi Brachot 52a-b Thought for the day

Can an Am ha'aretz be a waiter?
Once again one is forced to ask oneself - however did we end up discussing this, and who cares? Why is this important and what is going on?
The answer is not simple and I am not sure I understand fully the minds of Hillel and Shammai - but I think it has something to do with the way the rabbinical world saw itself. Are they a small sect with their own ways, and so everything needs to be done by one of their own? Or are they part of the Am - and thus all are welcome to be part of their meals, their celebrations and maybe even their learning? Going back to the sugya with regard to who should be allowed in the Beit Midrash - what is this saying? Why do we follow Shammai and not Hillel? Is it because in this case Shammai is the more lenient? Is he more lenient? What is Hillel's logic if he really does hold that an Am Ha'aretz can't wait on the meal of sages?
When I eat with friends - am I solely with them? Who is part of my meal? Is the waiter?
As always, the rabbis seem obsessed with boundaries (including the boundaries of the meal - mayim Ahronim). But what does that mean? Why are boundaries so important?
Is this once again an expression of the fragility of the Jewish people's position without sovereignty?
Or do we just not like mess and wasting food?

#Dafyomi Brachot 53a-b Thoughts/ Questions for the day

When does the life of a flame end and a new flame is born?
Is a flame created from another flame the same or different?
And what are we talking about when we talk about this? Are we really talking about the light inside of people and our own desperate hopes for immortality - perhaps if we ignite enough other souls in this world, then our light will never go out.
I am reminded of the short quote from Bamidbar Rabba:

אדם מדליק נר מנר, והנר דולק וחברו אינו חסר

A person light a candle from another candle and the candle is lit, and its fellow loses nothing. 

#Dafyomi (33a-b) Thought for the day.

מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר: ״עַל קַן צִיפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ״, וְ״עַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ״, ״מוֹדִים, מוֹדִים״ — מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ

״מוֹדִים, מוֹדִים״ מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ — מִשּׁוּם דְּמֶיחְזֵי כִּשְׁתֵּי רָשׁוּיוֹת. וְ״עַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ״ נָמֵי, מַשְׁמַע עַל הַטּוֹבָה וְלֹא עַל הָרָעָה, וּתְנַן: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה. אֶלָּא ״עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ״ מַאי טַעְמָא?

I am currently reading (listening to) Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks' book, "Not in my name" where he charges what he calls "pathological dualism" as being at the center of "altruistic evil" - that evil carried out, often through violence, in the name of a cause (often Religion). It is a marvelous book (not yet finished it, but the first half at least) and it touches on the issues raised here - linking the necessity to thank for the bad to the issue of dualism - since true monotheists recognise that G?d is the god who creates both - there is not a separate "רשות" (authority) who fights against G?d.

But like the Gemara, I am left wondering why the Bird's nest gets a mention. And the two answers the Gemara gives (raising the jealousy of other animals and encouraging finding a reason behind a law which has no reason) still do not satisfy me.

The mitzvah of שילוח הקן (sending away the mother bird before stealing her eggs) seems to be the mitzvah being referenced here, and the second reason of the Gemara (raising reasons for laws without reasons) does make sense, but still doesn't satisfy. Why can't we try and find reasons for laws without reasons? Are the rabbis afraid of people asking questions? Nothing could be further from the truth - the whole rabbinic edifice is built on the asking of questions. So nu?

I am going to assume that this example has been included with the other two because it relates to the same idea as the others - i.e. the denial of dualism and the embrace of monotheism. Asking G?d for mercy by using the example of the Bird's nest is an opening to dualism - how so?

We can assume that the idea is that in a prayer where one cites the bird's nest, one's logic would be, "if you have mercy on a bird, how can you not have mercy upon us - humans/the Jewish people - your children?" Surely this is the opposite of dualism - recognising that the G?d of the bird is also our G?d. The dualism is not within the image of G?d, but within the understanding of the place of humanity. If one uses the bird as an example and then makes a "קל וחומר" argument (one that states that if X, then surely Y), one creates a divide between humanity and the bird - implying that humans and the bird are not part of one creation.

What is the duality being attacked in this kind of prayer? - the duality of arrogance - the duality that places humanity in a completely separate category from birds. When we think that we are not just another part of nature, we begin down the road to a duality that creates a hierarchy. Our belief that we are above the animals in G?d's estimation is the ultimate hubris. Potentially this hubris - which encourages us to see the world around us, fauna and flora, as ours to be exploited will in fact be what leads to our fall. The climate crisis is the result of this hubris - this dualism - understanding ourselves as independent of the natural order. If only someone had silenced us when we first thought to turn the earth's nature into our own exploitable possession. 

#Dafyomi 32a-b - Thought for the Day

This thought is not particular to this day, but today's daf makes this point particularly well.

Critics of the talmudic process and of Jewish law (I am a critic of halacha (Jewish law) but not for this reason) find the talmudic reasoning frustrating, potentially even self-defeating or hypocritical. Within our current daf and in many other places, the Talmud will suggest that something is true, and all will seemingly agree to the truth of the statement, position or practice (in this case, that Moses spoke impudently to the Eternal), but there then develops a discussion over what the source of this position is.
The critic will ask - how is it possible that everyone can agree that Moses spoke impudently to the Eternal but no-one can agree on exactly what it was that was such an impudent statement? A more well known and up to date version of the same problem comes with the prohibition of electricity on Shabbat. When electricity was first considered prohibited for use on Shabbat, the reason given in most cases was connected to the fact that lights were the first electric appliance in use and so relied on the idea of creating light from heating a filament was a form of fire. But this would not hold for electrical appliances and fluorescent lights. And not everyone accepted that logic anyway, some claimed that the heating of the metal in the filament was a form of "cooking" (bishul) and others still that it was a form of shaping and fashioning iron (makeh b'patish).
L'kule alma (according to all opinions) electricity is forbidden on shabbat.
According to all opinions, Moses spoke impudently before the Eternal.
And yet we can't quite pinpoint why.
And this is why "law" is not a good translation of "halacha" and why law and lore are much closer than we think. In most cases, someone in tune with the heartbeat of their community can know whether a particular practice will fundamentally change that community's way of life. Those who seek to preserve a particular way of life will find a way to do so. It doesn't matter as much which way, as long as the way of life continues.
Someone who deeply knows the personality of Moshe having read and re-read his life's story, and knows the relationship between him and G?d, knows how he would have let himself talk to G?d in moments of crisis - we may not be able to pinpoint exactly why and when, but it is obvious that at some point Moses would have spoken from frustration and not just reverence.
The Talmud is not really trying to get to a bottom line - a legal directive - it is a discussion of people in love with their subject. And sometimes, in matters of love, you just know.

#Dafyomi (30a-b) Thought for the day.

מהיות טוב אל תקרא רע

If one can be called good, do not be called bad.


I already mentioned when we were on page 11, the lesson taught to me by my teacher and Rabbi, Rabbi Joel Levy with regard to the way the talmud deals with mahloket. When he teaches that sugya it is partnered with the story of Rav Hisda and Rav Sheshet from this daf.
In this story, Rav Sheshet chooses to comply with the frummest common denominator. (In the previous story, Rabbi Ishmael stuck up for the idea that all positions should be preserved to avoid the inevitable slide towards stricter and stricter interpretations.)
So - what is going on in this story? Why does Rav Sheshet not stand up for the idea that his way is acceptable (as Rabbi Yishmael had)? My friends over the years have suggested a number of explanations: The difference in the situations is that one is when two rabbis are travelling in the countryside and the other was at a party - at the party, the educational value was important - "Lest the students see and fix the halacha for generations" - but when it's just the two of them in the desert, there is no public, and so Rav Sheshet can just be a good friend and pray the traveller's prayer with his friend. Some have suggested that the difference here is that Rav Sheshet and Rav Hisda were a Hevruta (a study partnership) and so each already knew the other's position well and there was no room for misunderstanding.
When I used to read this story, I always read Rav Hisda as a little insensitive - unilaterally stopping and letting his blind friend carry on, making him decide whether to bow to his more strict interpretation or simply go their separate ways. But my friend and Rabbi, Rabbi Oded Mazor (who isn't on facebook, so I can only tag Rabbi Noa Mazor) explained another view of Rav Hisda - that he is the hero of pluralism in this story - for he knows that if he were to ask Rav Sheshet to stop, then Rav Sheshet would feel obliged, so he did not - he respected the fact that Rav Sheshet held differently to him, and allowed his friend to carry on, while praying the travelers' prayer. Having been shown such respect, Rav Sheshet then freely chose to stand still and pray in unison with his friend.
Together the stories of Rav Sheshet and Rav Hisda and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Elazar ask the question: What do we do when we don't agree on how to do something together. In the most Talmudic answer possible - the Talmud gives two competing answers as to what to do:

מהיות טוב אל תקרא רע 

- Find the common ground (even if that is the frummest common denominator).
Or

"שמא יראו התלמידים ויקבעו הלכה לדורות

- Preserve the varied diverse and different traditions.

At different times we will need each approach. And we must find a way to do both.
May we all merit to live in communities of genuine love and sisterhood which allow each of us to preserve our own traditions and live by our own principles.

#Dafyomi (29a-b) Thought for the day:

"טָבָא לָא הָוֵי בִּישָׁא"

"A good person does not become wicked."
The gemara discusses whether a good person can "become wicked". To believe that they can't would surely mean that we believe people can be wicked from birth. I don't know whether the righteous can become wicked or not - I only know that fundamental to any spiritual practice must be that the individual has the ability to change. Obviously we would like that change to be positive - the wicked to become good. But even so - we must always believe in the possibility of change - the alternative is not worth thinking about.
May each new day be an opportunity to embrace transformation and may we all aim to be the best version of ourselves.

#Dafyomi (28a - b) Thought for the day:

"כׇּל תַּלְמִיד שֶׁאֵין תּוֹכוֹ כְּבָרוֹ, לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ."

"Every student whose inner self is not as his outer shall not enter the Beit Midrash."
Hypocrisy is the greatest barrier to learning. Why? Because essentially all real learning is transformation. One who does not know themselves, or is not honest with themselves will never truly learn because they are unable to be changed - first know thyself, then change yourself. This is the learning of the Beit Midrash. The text is holy - not because each text contains truth, but because each sugya (conversation) is a gateway to the soul.
May we all be blessed with self-awareness so that we too may experience the transformation of learning.

#Dafyomi (27a-b) Thought for the day:

דעבד כמר עבד ודעבד כמר עבד

This one goes according to their authority and this one according to theirs (and that's sababa).
We don't always need to agree - or maybe we never do? Throughout Masechet Brachot, the rabbis discuss the necessity of a fixed practice while taking into account the importance of preserving individual opinions and traditions.
May we merit to continue this work as seriously as they took it - and may each of us act in accordance with their own authority and together may we make a holy community.

#Dafyomi (26a-b) Thought for the day:

מעוות לא יוכל לתקון

That which is distorted cannot be repaired?
Really? No – of course not – As long as some light remains, it is always possible to fix (See R’ Salanter).
And we must always remind ourselves that though it seems that way – though it seems like the road back to the straight and narrow is simply too long – it really isn’t. Whether we be Darth Vader, Kylo Ren, Haim Shalom, or Binyamin Netanyahu – time will always be left for us to try and make amends. And we remain obligated to do so.

#Dafyomi (25a-b) Thought for the day:

Having sex by a Torah. What’s the problem? Why is someone going “to die” if they have sex in front of a torah scroll? Especially when we know that Torah cannot contract tumah (uncleanliness)?
The Torah is not offended by sex. It does not get desecrated – but what about us? What does it say about us that we can have sex infront of the Torah – symbol of that which is most dear to us? How could we really be respecting our partner if we were willing to have sex while something so dear was exposed before us? Is it respectful to have sex with someone when the possibility of distraction is so clearly at hand? Is it possible this is a lesson in intention? In mindfulness?
May we always love the one we are with. And be with the one we love. And may Torah fill our lives, but not our bedrooms.

#Dafyomi (24a-b) Thought for the day:

Continuing from the previous issue of intimacy with one’s students – at the beginning of this page, it seems that Rava’s students knew when he had sex with his wife. Really? Yes really.
How is it possible that the tradition was seemingly ok with someone knowing when her teacher has sex with her husband/wife, but we get to the point that even seeing the little finger of a woman can be considered inappropriate?
The tradition is not prudish, nor is it embarrassed of sex and the human body – but it knows that we can be. Our tradition recognises that as we lose perspective, our rules will change. It is not the problem of the tradition – it is the problem of our perspective.

#Dafyomi (23a-b) Thought for the day:

How to keep your shit together?
Or – what to do when the shit gets so high around you, it’s as if it is permanent?
A rabbinic discussion around toilets and tefillin – what are we talking about here? Well – first off, we really are talking about crapping with ritual objects. Jewishness is not afraid to “go there”. In fact – this too is torah – how to treat that which helps us be holy around semen (discussion on previous page) or excrement (this page) is not only necessary and legitimate, but should be discussed at length, to make sure we don’t make a mistake. And whatever embarrassment is in the conversation must be faced – because embarrassment should never get in the way of education.

On one of those previous pages (on the subject of accidental ejaculation) we have a situation where a bunch of students knows that their teacher is in a state of impurity because he had an accidental ejaculation in the night. While I am not sure I ever want to be that close to my students that they would know something like this about me, I envy the educational environment which can make space for this kind of intimate learning experience.

#Dafyomi (22a-b) Thought for the day:

אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה

“Words of Torah do not contract uncleanliness”
Words of Torah (true words of Torah) will always be pure. But the one speaking them may not be so. What are we to learn from this? Torah may be used by those with pure intention and those will ill intention. The intention of the speaker determines much – but not the inherent purity of the words being spoken – meaning – while someone may use Torah for an evil purpose, that same piece of Torah can still be used for good. Words have no inherent value – they are tools – neither clean nor unclean, but rather purified and profaned according to the intention of those using them.
May we all take words of Torah and turn them to pure intentions.

#Dafyomi (21a-b) Thought for the day:

Bringing as many blessings into the world vs “a blessing in vain”.
Is our job to increase the blessings in the world, even if those blessings are only the work of our lips, or should we be wary of blessing the profane and raising it up? Does this become a form of idolatry?
I see truth in both. I would like words of blessing to ever be on my lips, but I need the blessing of discernment to know what is truly worthy of blessing.

#Dafyomi (20a-b) Thought for the day:

"הרהור כדיבור דמי"

Contemplation is like speaking.
Is intention enough? Is it the thought that counts? Or does what comes out of our mouth count more?
No - thought is not enough. Good intentions are not enough. One must actually act in the world in a way which will bring divinity into this world. And how does one do that, even when we are not in spiritual or physical shape to do what is required?

"בדבר שהציבור עוסקין בו"

Through that which the people are engaged in.
When one can't themselves take part, continuing to be part of the community and tying your fate to theirs is the best we can do to make sure that we too have played our part in bringing redemption.
May we all merit to be spiritually ready, and even if not, may we all join with the community for the common good.