Divinity of Hebrew – words and molecules

Another Hebrew-is-divine proof. This time through chemistry!

Water is spelled Mayim mem-yud-mem. Interestingly, the chemical makeup of water is two atoms of hydrogen surrounding one atom of oxygen.

Ok, first I would like to know if H2O is the only example for G-d encoding chemistry in Hebrew or are there others? I couldn’t find any others through web search (I couldn’t even find this one on a serious page). If you know of any, please tell me.

But if we just extrapolate from yud=oxygen and mem=hydrogen, what can we get? The Hebrew word yam (yud-mem) means sea, so that would be OH. That’s not stable, it’s the hydroxyl radical which can cause serious damage to organic compounds. So the sea can be dangerous? Maybe that’s not it. As a hydroxyl group -OH can attach to some carbonyl group and form different alcohols (methanol, ethanol, etc). So a sea of alcohol? We could also turn the letters around, mi (mem-yud) is "who", but does that make more sense?

Maybe two letters is too short. What about adding another letter, e.g., a vav for yom? We have hydrogen and oxygen and one other element. That could be sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide or the hydroxide of any other alkali metal. Any connection to the concept of a day?

Or, the other way around, what about CO2, carbon dioxide? That’s pretty important, what word could it be? It has to have two mem and one other letter. As the structure is O=C=O (just like H-O-H), the other letter has to be in the middle. My rigorous scientific research* got me the candidates מָדָם (madame), מָהֵם (what are), מוּם (deficiency), מֵחַם (samovar), מֵעִם (from), מִקֵּם (to place). Plus a few combined forms with the prefix מִ (from) like מִשָּׁם (from there). Well, none of these words has any connection to carbon dioxide that I can see.

Ok, let’s assume there are other examples people more intelligent than me have found. What are the rules for replacing letters with atoms and vice-versa? Why is mem hydrogen? The oxygen atom is bigger than hydrogen, mem is bigger than yud, shouldn’t yud be hydrogen? But size cannot really be a good indicator, so let’s look for something else.

Every Hebrew letter has a numerical value. Every chemical element has a unique atomic number. So let’s find some correspondences by using a periodic table. Yud is 10, the element with atomic number would be neon. Mem is 40, that would be zirco­nium. I don’t think that gives us something connected to water. What about starting from the atoms? Hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1, oxygen is 8. Two alef and a chet? Is that a word?

During my search for other examples I came across various Christian pages that try to translate the tetragramaton to chemical elements**. They used the atomic mass instead of the atomic number (although with isotopes of different masses this does not make much sense, but I digress). So let’s try this. There is no element with standard atomic weight 10, but the isotope boron-10 is stable. Calcium has the standard atomic weight 40. So can you do something with calcium and two boron atoms? I doubt it.

Ok, this got longer than planned, but it brought back memories of school and was a lot of fun. I would suggest nobody employ this particular "proof" in an argument as it has no basis at all, not even a tiny little straw to cling to.


* I put מבם into Milon morfix and clicked on the suggested autocorrections.
** The idea is something like the tetragramaton corresponds to the atoms that form the molecules that form DNA, i.e., G-d is the basis of all life. The replacement rules were yud=hydrogen (atomic number 1/ standard atomic weight 1), he=nitrogen (7/14), vav=oxygen (8/16), gimel=carbon (6/12). Where the gimel comes from and how they arrive at these substitution is beyond me. They claim the rules are "based upon their matching values of atomic mass". Whatever. I won’t link to such pages so search for yourselves if you are interested in crazy things.

Can positive Jewish experiences save the community?

Rabbi Fink wrote a piece on Keeping the Orthodox Orthodox. I encourage you to read the whole piece, but here is the snippet I want to discuss:

We have to make our actual Jewish experiences into positive experiences. That doesn’t mean we just give out candy whenever people are not enjoying themselves to distract them. I think the way to do this is by shifting our communal focus from knowledge and beliefs to rituals and experiences.

I want to tell you a bit about my community. It is a very small community with an orthodox rabbi. The vast majority of members are immigrants from the former Soviet states [we call all of them Russians] and do not know a lot about Judaism. Many of them use the services of the community (help with appointments, forms, medical advice, social services, etc), but very few ever show up in the synagogue.

The community tried to find activities to engage the people who never show up. And it worked. We have Russian literature readings, a chess club, piano concerts and events to honor the Russian war heroes. And these are well attended. I am sure these are positive experiences. But this does not translate to a minyan on Shabat or an interest in religion. And that is why the community will eventually vanish. I am sure R. Fink was not thinking of this type of experiences, but I want to point out the danger that lies in putting experience first and religion second.

So what is the solution? How can my community survive? Well, to be honest I think most German communities will die in the next 30 years. But for those that could survive I agree partly with R. Fink. We must create positive experiences, but Jewish religious experiences. Lively services. Enjoyable Shabat dinners. Communal holiday celebrations. But I think it is not enough to have experiences, there has to be an element of learning. This may be specific to communities like mine where there is no Jewish education to speak of. Knowing the structure of the service enhances the experience by a large factor. Discussing Torah can be fun and engaging and I cannot get it anywhere but in the community. Attending a dinner to mark a holiday is more meaningful than just spending a random evening with your friends (for which you wouldn’t need to pay membership fees).

When I leaf through the community newspaper I see very few things that speak to me. I am not looking for a Russian culture club or a neighbourhood tea party. I am interested in religion. I want to mark religious occasions. I want to discuss spiritual topics, the search for meaning, ethics, G-d. Just to have some company I can go to a sports club, choir, book club or any other place that has less Russians, less complicated application procedures and less fees.

I will probably have to say more about this topic, but this post is long enough. Basically, positive experiences YES, but with a connection to religion.

Divinity of Hebrew – ear and balance

Some people try to prove the divinity of the Torah by saying that Hebrew is divine. The divinity of Hebrew supposedly proves that someone (i.e., G-d) has designed it. Apart from the fact that it is quite a leap from the divinity of Hebrew to observing all commandments in the Torah, these linguistic proofs are pretty much nonsense.

One famous example is that ears in Hebrew is אָזְנַיִם (oznaim) and measuring/weighing scales is מְאזֹנָים (me’oznaim). Why would these two words be related? Because the sense of balance which the scales use to measure weight is located in the ear. Which of course G-d would know and take into account when He creates a language.

So how can we explain the relation of these two words without divine intervention? First thing to check is whether this is actually a modern discovery. Since when humans know about the connection of the ear with the sense of balance? If this was common knowledge in the ancient world, there is no argument here. The discovery of the vestibular system is attributed to Pierre Flourens in the 19th century. This does not exclude the possibility that the ancient Israelites knew something and the knowledge was lost, but it is improbable.

Next question we need to address is if the words are really related. Words that have two unrelated meanings but are pronounced the same way are called homonyms. One way this can happen is if two words that were originally pronounced differently change their pronounciations over time and end up being pronounced the same way. A German example is "kiver" (jaw in Middle High German) and "kienforha" (pine tree in Old High German) which have converged to "Kiefer" in modern German (Wikipedia: Entstehen und Verschwinden von Homonymen).

A simple way to test if there might be homonymy going on is to look at the two words in related languages. So let’s check Arabic. Wikipedia gives أذن for ear and ميزان for scales. I don’t read Arabic, so I have no clue how to pronounce this, but the middle letter in ear is clearly a dal (pronounced [ð], like "th" in "that"). The middle letter in scales is a zayin (pronounced [z]). The pronounciation difference in a very related langugae makes it probably that there might have been two different words in Hebrew at one point. Additional evidence is that the pronounciation difference reportedly appears in Ugaritic as well, ‘udn is ear and mznm is scales (Does Hebrew moznayim, scales, derive from Hebrew ozen, ear? citing a mail from Ishinan).

Linguistics is actually a field of research and there is loads of research on the origin of languages and their developments. I am too lazy to go to the university library, but a web search turns up quite some results on consonant shifts between Proto Semitic and Hebrew and also during the development of Hebrew. Here are some references for those interested: Consonants in Semitic languages, Proto-Semitic Phonemes (Consonants) Exhibiting Sound Shifts in Hebrew and their Equivalents in Aramaic and Classical Arabic, Phonetic mergers in the Semitic languages (or if you want a book Aron Dolgopolsky (1999) From Proto-Semitic to Hebrew). All of the references contain a merging of [ð] and [z], so in my opinion the homonym theory is a very plausible one.

But even if you don’t believe in linguistics, and you see the relation between ear and scales as hard evidence for divine design, you are not done yet. To make the argument work, you would need to prove that there is no other language where the two concepts share the same word (I assume Hebrew should be the only divine language). And by prove I mean not just say it, but actually check all languages. Which is quite a task.

What would be different the day after I convert?

I have been to some workshop for work and one thing got me thinking about my conversion. The presenter more or less said that sometimes we think we want something when in reality we want something else and the key question to ask is "what would be different the day after you got it". So, what would be different in my life the day after I went to the mikve (officially converted)? So this is a description of my life the day after I converted.

I am cooking in my kosher kitchen (which was already kosher before minus the fact that there was a non-Jew cooking there). Before I eat I say brachot and sometimes I even remember to say them after eating. Shabat I keep just the way I have been for some years now. I contact friends to arrange plans for the upcoming holidays. Quite a bit of my free time is spent reading, learning and discussing about Judaism.

After years of being a guest I am finally an official member of my community. Being a member does not change anything at the orthodox services as I am a women anyway. But I get to pay (yeah) and I get the community news and I’m officially invited to whatever happens. Which is nice, although with the years I have created my own sources for these news so that I don’t really need it that urgently.

I don’t have to go to awkward explanations every time I go somewhere where they don’t know me. Whenever I am now asked by security personnel I can say "yes, I am Jewish" and get to skip the stupid questioning. I can register for Jewish events without filling out the "I am not Jewish but want to attend" comment box or try to sneak in somehow. Also it doesn’t feel like I’m half lying when I tell people that I don’t eat/drink/celebrate/do X because I am Jewish.

But the most important change in my life is "legitimization". Now that I’m "really" Jewish I have more argumentative power to stand my ground. Whether it is in convincing my boyfriend’s family that I won’t come to church with them, or telling someone that I have separate dishes for Pesach, or planning my [hypothetical] children’s education with my boyfriend, or asking someone to introduce a Jewish element to my [hypothetical] civil marriage ceremony. Finally countery"arguments" like "you are not even Jewish" or "they don’t want you, why bother" don’t work anymore.

So basically, my life has not changed. It has finally been officially given the label it already had.

Why does the world care about Israel so much?

I’m going to summarize my subjective understanding of An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth by Matti Friedman. I encourage you to read the whole article although it is long. He does a way better job at explaining his point of view than I do. Still, here it comes.

The main question of the article is why the world is obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are many conflicts in the world, many involve human tragedies. But we hear more about Israel than about any other conflict and there are more journalists reporting on it than on any other conflict.

In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

Does this mean that the average person knows more about the background of the conflict and the parties involved? On the Israeli side yes, every action is analyzed and critized (although maybe not put into perspective). But there is not much analyzing going on about the Palestinian groups. We do not hear much about the factions in Palestinian society or the motivations and dreams of the average Palestinian. Not even about Hamas’ treatment of the Gaza population in the last round of the war.

The fact is that Hamas intimidation is largely beside the point because the actions of Palestinians are beside the point: Most reporters in Gaza believe their job is to document violence directed by Israel at Palestinian civilians. That is the essence of the Israel story.

Why? Because what the world wants to see is this conflict as the one where the Jews are the strong guys and thus the responsible party. They are the reason for the conflict (settlements, right-wing extremists, etc). Implicit is the assumption that if this conflict is solved, the whole region will have peace.

Some may say but that’s what it is. So what other views does Friedman offer? He has two alternatives:

Since the mid 1990s, more than any other player, Hamas has destroyed the Israeli left, swayed moderate Israelis against territorial withdrawals, and buried the chances of a two-state compromise.

and

An observer might also legitimately frame the story through the lens of minorities in the Middle East, all of which are under intense pressure from Islam: When minorities are helpless, their fate is that of the Yazidis or Christians of northern Iraq, as we have just seen, and when they are armed and organized they can fight back and survive, as in the case of the Jews and (we must hope) the Kurds.

I am usually not fond of explaining everything by shouting "antisemitism". Our national Jewish leaders do that far too often and that makes the argument stale when it is really warranted. But maye Friedman has a point here. He argues that the ills of the world are projected onto the Jews. At the moment people in the west see "racism, colonialism, and militarism" as the main ills of the age. And what is Israel accused of? Racism (or apartheid), colonialism (or occupation, or settlements) and militarism (or being the agressor, or occupying force).

So what is the real story? What is the real danger in the middle east?

The ascendant force in our part of the world is not democracy or modernity. It is rather an empowered strain of Islam that assumes different and sometimes conflicting forms, and that is willing to employ extreme violence in a quest to unite the region under its control and confront the West. Those who grasp this fact will be able to look around and connect the dots.

Define your own derech (way)

I wanted to notify you about a very good post on Kol B’Isha Erva: Defining our own derech. In brief, it is a response to a BT (baal teshuva) poster who feels disenchanted with his observant lifestyle and the community he is in. There are many good points in the original post and I recommend you go and read it and the comments. But in my opinion this is the most powerful part:

It’s important not to abandon common sense and the lessons learned by experience, parents, and even secular teachers. [...]

I believe that, as baal teshuvas, we have the ability to create derechs that combine the best of both the secular and frum worlds, even if those innovations rankle those who follow the crowd. It takes koach and courage to buck the system, but BTs have already been there, done that. By bucking the secular system and joining orthodoxy, we have already proven ourselves willing to go against the grain. We have the ability to enact social change, and while that might make us dangerous to some, it also makes us pioneers to others.

I am not a BT, I am a convert-to-be. But in many ways the pressure to conform to the new, better way of life is the same. To be "in" we are told that we need to accept the whole package. But this sometimes means going against everything we learned as we grew up. And that’s not always healthy. Don’t throw all of yourself away. Re-evaluate it in the light of Judaism and keep what is good. Believe in yourself and your values. Don’t be afraid to create your own derech (way). And let the others label you "off the derech" as much as they want.

Rejection…

I just learned that one of my fellow "applicants" for conversion at the community here has recently converted. There were four of us who had interviews the same day and the community chose her (there was no rabbi involved, they said they can accept only one person because of limited resources, long story). While I am happy for her and wish her luck, I have spent the day thinking about my interview and what I might have said that made them accept her and reject me. And whether or not I should approach them again. And risk being rejected again.

Mazal tov to Morel and Mahmoud

For those who haven’t heard yet, Mahmoud (a Muslim Arab Israeli) and Morel (Jewish-born Israeli, converted to Islam) got married a few days ago in the midst of protests against their intermarriage*. I do not know the two, but I am ashamed that other people who likewise do not know them think it is their business to meddle in their lives becaus of their racist attitudes. What would you say if people protested a catholic girl marrying a Jew? Racism against Arabs is just as bad as antisemitism and especially Jews should know better. And living in a modern society not only means that you can freely live your life the way you please, but also to accept the choices other make, even if you don’t agree with them.

I wish the couple happiness in their marriage. And I hope they will be able to look back on this day together in 25 years and laugh.

* It’s technically not an intermarriage because she converted, they are both Muslim now.

You Can Do It In a Skirt

Just found this blog You Can Do It In a Skirt and thought it’s cute. I can check off hiking, climbing a tree, climbing around a playground, swimming (see my last post), horseback riding. Ok, I’m cheating a bit, sometimes I’m wearing a dress that goes not quite go until the knee over pants. Still I get strange comments from people, so that should count. I don’t think I have ever been hanging upside down in a skirt though. Maybe when I have kids…

I went swimming

I went swimming with friends. This statement in itself wouldn’t be too exciting for most people, but for me it is. I haven’t been swimming with friends for some years now. On the few occasions I was invited to a party at the pool with friends I put my feet into the water and no more.

I have always been rather modest and I never liked myself in a swimsuit. So Jewish modesty rules gave me sort of the excuse not to wear it again. But the price was not swimming. Which was sort of fine with me, but my boyfriend didn’t like it too much. So he got me a "burquini", the muslim version of a modest swimsuit (we didn’t find anything Jewish that was not horribly expensive with overseas shipping).

It consists of leggings that go to the ankle, a dress that goes to the knee with sleeves to the wrist and a hijab (veil). So I look very muslim. The veil is actually rather uncomfortable so I took it off after some time. The only annoying thing is that the skirt goes up in the water, I need to find a way to fix this. But apart from that I rather liked the experience and I felt fine. And I didn’t get any strange comments (but after all, these were my friends). When I wear it to a public pool I’ll report back.

Rebuilding the Temple

In Judaism we pray about the restauration of the temple and the temple service every day in the Amida (the central prayer of every service). At least for me this is sort of automatic and I mostly don’t think about it, but with Tisha BeAv around I couldn’t help it.

I am a modern person. I live in the city with no contact to animals. My food comes from the supermarket and I’m a vegetarian. I don’t want to see animals die. My religion is about prayer, books, morality. Not rituals with blood. When I read about the temple parts in the Torah it seems archaic, disgusting and just totally irrelevant to my life. When I look at how I am feeling when I just read the descriptions, there is no way seeing the temple sacrifices would bring me closer to G-d.

So why am I praying for the rebuilding of the temple? Wouldn’t it be more consistent not to pray for it? This is what Reform Judaism did, they removed all parts about sacrifices and the temple from the prayers (and more, but that’s a different topic). But that puts you out of tradition. And it is actually pretty difficult to define exactly what to remove. What about "rebuild Jerusalem"? Or the messiah (who is supposed to rebuild the temple)? But if I don’t remove it, can I pray things I don’t believe in? Or maybe, do I have to adjust my attitude about the temple?

I am still looking for an answer. Some parts (like in the Mussaf Amida with the description of the Shabat sacrifice) I simply cannot pray and I skip over them. Other parts (like in the workday Amida) I pray without really thinking about them. And sometimes when I pray parts that refer to the messianic age, I pray for peace, a good life for everybody, this sort of things. Not necessarily the temple. And I will wait for the Messiah to sort it out when he comes.

Imperfect leaders

A corollary from the Sinai mass revelation discussion. Another argument for the uniqueness (and by implication divinity) of the Torah that I have heard a few times is that the leading figures in Torah are all imperfect. The Torah describes all their sins very openly. Other (men-written) texts from the time glorify their leaders.

Yes, you have these perfect stories about some leaders. They list victory after victory and nothing else. Every king has a record of his accomplishments which conveniently forgets the defeats. We have many inscriptions of greatness, but who remembers the party that lost. Actually, this is not a phenomenon that we have left behind, even today biographies of great persons are sometimes "cleaned up" because we want our hero to be perfect.

But there are also plenty of non-biblical stories of flawed heroes around. Greek and Roman mythology would be nothing without a character flaw. Romulus, founder of Rome, kills his own brother. Odysseus is overly proud. And so on. For that matter Greek and Roman gods are not better, they are angry, jealous, unfaithful and arrogant. Norse gods (Odin, Thor, etc) are a bunch with pretty much the same qualities as their southern counterparts. Iceland’s famous Njál saga is full of people deceiving and killing each other. And these are just a few examples.

Stories of perfect beings are just not that interesting. And stories are created to teach a character lesson. We need to see the hero overcome their flaws – or go down because of them. So in itself stories with flawed heroes are not rare. Still, I would say there is a difference between the examples I listed above and the stories about the patriarchs, Moses and the other great Jewish leaders. But what exactly is the difference?

10 signs that you don’t understand evolution

This post is a sort of continuation of my previous post about why evolution and belief do not have to stand in contrast with each other. I just found a great post that refutes many arguments that creationists use against evolution. I encourage you to read the whole post, but this is the short version of
The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all
by Tyler Francke:

1. You think "it hasn’t been observed" is a good argument against it.
— many experiments have made and (successfully) tested predictions of the theory, plus the same argument is also a good argument against G-d.

2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.
— there are links in the article to just such fossils [as I am no expert in the field and haven't followed the links I cannot really say more about this].

3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.
— macroevolution is just the accumulation of small changes (i.e., microevolution).

4. You think mutations are always negative.
— they are not, most are neutral, some are both, some are positive.

5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.
— it assumes life exists and then says something about how it develops, how it came into being is a very different story.

6. You use the phrase "it’s only a theory" and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.
— the use of the word "theory" in science actually distinguishes a confirmed explanation of facts from "hypothesis&qout; (what your normal person means when he says "I have a theory how he stole my purse&qout;).

7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.
— people are not blindly believing one person, they are believing what is scientific consensus in a group of highly competitive people who have spend years of investigation on it.

8. You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long series of hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.
— scientists are actually the ones to find the occasional errors, misunderstandings and wrong conclusions other scientists make, it has (in the vast majority of cases, not counting a few black sheep) nothing to do with intentionally misleading everybody.

9. You don’t like Pokémon because you think it "promotes" evolution.
— WTF?

10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.
— the error is in the interpretation.

I am especially allergic to people who misunderstand the use of the word "theory&qout; in a scientific context (point 6) or how the scientific process works (points 1 and 8). I would add to point 5 that how/whether G-d interfers in evolution is another very different story. Point 10 is here presented from a Christian point of view, but in the end I would agree that there need not (and should not) be a conflict between science and faith. The Torah is written in the language of man, we do not have to take everything literally. And even if a certain part has been taken literally until now, in the face of new evidence we can say that we have learned only now that G-d did not intend us to take it literally. This does not in any way negate G-d’s existence or my belief in Him. (In some cases it might force me to re-evaluate some religious teachings or even halachot, but that is part of the process of halacha, it is not static but is applied to our contemporary issues.)

What happened on Tisha beAv

Tomorrow evening starts Tisha beAv, the biggest of the minor fast days (the only other 25 hour fast besides Yom Kippur). The main reason we fast is to mourn the loss of the temple. Both the first and the second temple were destroyed on this date (the first by the Babylonians in 586 BCE; the second by the Romans in 70 CE). Also supposedly on that day the tewlve spies/scouts returned who had entered Canaan and brought back a negative report which caused the Israelites to wander in the desert for fourty year (Numbers 13:1-14:45).

There are also people who connect many other more or less recent ocurrences with this date. I am always sceptical about numbers and have checked a few (chronological order). Online date converters do not take into account the Gregorian Reformation therefor dates before 1752 have not been checked and are reported as I find them somewhere on the web.

  • The expulsion of the Jews from France. The edict was issued in April 1182 and they had to leave in July (no exact dates given in Wikipedia, but July can be Av).
  • The expulsion of the Jews from England. The edict was issued on 18 July 1290. This date is supposed to be Tisha beAv.
  • Another expulsion of the Jews from France. All Jews were arrested on 22 July 1306 which is supposed to be the day after Tisha B’Av.
  • The expulsion of the Jews from Spain. The Alhambra decree was issued on 31 March 1492 (far away from Av) that all Jews have to leave Spain until 31 July 1492. Judaism 101 claims 31 July 1492 was Tisha beAv. My rabbinate claims 2 August 1492 was Tisha beAv which would make the date of the expulsion 7th of Av. I don’t know.
  • Start of first world war. The war started on 28 July 1914 (5 Av 5674) with Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia. Tisha beAv was August 1st, the day when Germany declared war against Russia.
  • Reichskristallnacht. Though tragic, this happened on 9 November 1938 which is definitely nowhere near the month Av (which is always in July/August).
  • Something related to Nazis. The first plans to exterminate all Jews were discussed mid-1941, first small-scale "tests" were conducted end of 1941 and some camps build. The official plan was decided at the Wannsee conference on 20 January 1942 (definitely not in Av). Himmler ordered on 19 April 1942 (not in Av) to start the "re-settlement" of all Jews from the Reich. The deportation of the Warsaw Ghetto inhabitants started on 22 July 1942, the first train to Treblinka left on 23 Juli 1942 (Tisha beAv).
  • First Gulf war. I have found the curious statement "Iraq walks out of talks with Kuwait 1989" but couldn’t match it to anything.
  • AMIA Bombing (Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina). This happened on 18 July 1994 which was 10 of Av 5754.
  • 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The attacks happened on 11 September 2001 which was 23 Elul 5761 (not Av).
  • Disengagement from Gaza. The evacuation started on 15 August 2005 which was 10 Av 5765. This is not a coincidence, the date was intentionally pushed back to avoid conflict with the three weeks of mourning ending on Tisha beAv.

Tell me if you hear about more (real or fake) events conneted to Tisha beAv.

More Arabs in Israel

Two small add-ons to my recent post about Israel Arabs:

Arabs in Israel can be ...

An an article about Rasan Alian the "first Druse officer to have been appointed commander of the Golani Brigade" wounded in Gaza.