What did you say?

On Thursday our ulpan instructor Michal arrived to class without her voice. Somehow she had lost it the previous night. So we spent the beginning of our class conversing with one another and answering questions or taking notes from the barely audible whisper of Michal’s voice. After an hour, we went outside and took cabs down to the Israeli Supreme Court to go on the tour of the building. In Hebrew.

While in the ulpan I feel like I can usually understand at least 80% of what people are saying. On the Hebrew tour of the Supreme Court that was about how much I felt I couldn’t understand. Ah, well.

The building itself is a beautiful, modern structure, having only opened in 1992. The building was by philanthropist Dorothy de Rothschild, who wrote a letter to then Prime Minister Shimon Perez expressing her desire to donate a building for the Supreme Court in 1984. A contest was then held for the architecture of the building. The building’s design is intended to invoke the architectural styles from the entire history of Israel, from the time of the Temple through the modern city of today. It is an impressive structure with no one defining feature, built upon contrasts: Jerusalem stone walls across from plaster walls, enclosed spaces and open spaces, circles and lines.

In the center of the building is a pyramid shape with a library built around the bottom. The library is filled with books containing examples of law from all over the world.

At the end of the tour we sat in on one of the court cases taking place.

Looking up at the inside of the pyramid's peak

The library built around the base of the pyramid

Outside the courtrooms

One of the new classes I am taking during the second session here at the yeshiva is called "Prisms of gender in Rabbinic literature." So far we have been looking at sections of the Torah dealing with the creation of humans, man and women, and laws of purity following childbirth. Our discussions have been on the positive depictions -- or lack thereof -- of women and the differences between men and women.

The class has been interesting, both for the texts we are reading and discussing, and at least as much for the reactions (and in many cases, close mindedness) of the other students. Many of the texts that we are reading can be problematic, and at an initial reading can be quite negative towards women (especially when read and understood through our 21st century viewpoints and sensibilities). Many people in the class are so offended by their first reading of the texts that it is impossible to move beyond their initial reactions to explore the text, put it in context, and see if a deeper meaning or a progressive thought can be found.

As is the case with most talmudic or other rabbinic texts, there usually are deeper levels, or at least a way to understand it in the context of when it was written. Some of the people however would rather spend their soapbox moments speaking about how it is offensive and misogynistic, and no other meaning can be taken from it. Like I said, sometimes their reactions are even more fun than exploring the text itself. Fun stuff.