Uncategorized
Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it?
(JTA) — I was a remote worker long before the pandemic made it a thing, but it was only last month that I really took advantage of it. Early on the morning of New Year’s Day, I boarded a plane from Connecticut bound for Mexico, where I spent a full month sleeping in thatch-roofed palapas, eating more tacos than was probably wise and bathing every day in the Pacific. I’ll spare you the glorious details, but suffice it to say, it wasn’t a bad way to spend a January.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found myself again and again coming into contact with expats who had traded in their urban lives in northern climes for a more laid-back life in the tropics. There was the recently divorced motorcycle enthusiast slowly wending his way southward by bike as he continued to work a design job for a major American bank. There was the yoga instructor born not far from where I live in Massachusetts who owned an open-air rooftop studio just steps from the waves. There were the countless couples who had chosen to spend their days running beachfront bars or small hotels on the sand. And then there were the seemingly endless number and variety of middle-aged northerners rebooting their lives in perpetual sunshine.
Such people have long mystified me. It’s not hard to understand the lure of beachside living, and part of me envies the freedom to design your own life from the ground up. But there’s also something scary about it. Arriving in middle age in a country where you know nobody, whose language is not your own, whose laws and cultural mores, seasons and flora, are all unfamiliar — it feels like the essence of shallow-rootedness, like a life devoid of all the things that give one (or at least me) a sense of comfort and security and place. The thought of exercising the right to live literally anywhere and any way I choose opens up a space so vast and limitless it provokes an almost vertiginous fear of disconnection and a life adrift.
Clearly, this feeling isn’t universally shared. And the fact that I have it probably owes a lot to my upbringing. I grew up in an Orthodox family, which by necessity meant life was lived in a fairly small bubble. Our house was within walking distance of our synagogue, as it had to be since walking was the only way to get there on Shabbat and holidays. I attended a small Jewish day school, where virtually all of my friends came from families with similar religious commitments. Keeping kosher and the other constraints of a religious life had a similarly narrowing effect on the horizons of my world and thus my sense of life’s possibilities. Or at least that’s how it often felt.
What must it be like — pardon the non-kosher expression — to feel as if the world is your oyster? That you could live anywhere, love anyone, eat anything and make your life whatever you want it to be? Thrilling, yes — but also frightening. The sense of boundless possibility I could feel emanating from those sun-baked Mexicans-by-choice was seductive, but tempered by aversion to a life so unmoored.
The tension between freedom and obligation is baked into Jewish life. The twin poles of our national narrative are the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai, each commemorated by festivals separated by exactly seven weeks in the calendar, starting with Passover. The conventional understanding is that this juxtaposition isn’t accidental. God didn’t liberate the Israelites from slavery so they could live free of encumbrances on the Mayan Riviera. Freedom had a purpose, expressed in the giving of the Torah at Sinai, with all its attendant rules and restrictions and obligations. Freedom is a central value of Jewish life — Jews are commanded to remember the Exodus every day. But Jewish freedom doesn’t mean the right to live however you want.
Except it might mean the right to live any place you want. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, God gives the Israelites the commandment of the Jubilee year, known as yovel in Hebrew. Observed every 50 years in biblical times, the Jubilee has many similarities to the shmita (sabbatical) year, but with some additional rituals. The text instructs: “And you shall hallow the 50th year. You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to your holding and each of you shall return to your family.”
Among the requirements of the Jubilee was that ancestral lands be returned to their original owners. Yet the word for liberty is a curious one: “d’ror.” The Talmud explains its etymology this way: “It is like a man who dwells [medayer] in any dwelling and moves merchandise around the entire country” (Rosh Hashanah 9b).
The liberty of the Jubilee year could thus be said to have two contrary meanings — individuals had the right to return to their ancestral lands, but they were also free not to. They could live in any dwelling they chose. The sense of liberty connoted by the biblical text is a specifically residential one: the freedom to live where one chooses. Which pretty well describes the world we live in today. Jewish ancestral lands are freely available to any Jew who wants to live there. And roughly half the Jews of the world choose not to.
Clearly, I’m among them. And while I technically could live anywhere, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to. I like where I live — not because of any particular qualities of this place, though I do love its seasons and its smells and its proximity to the people I care about and the few weeks every fall when the trees become a riotous kaleidoscope. But mostly because it’s mine.
A version of this essay appeared in My Jewish Learning’s Recharge Shabbat newsletter. Subscribe here.
—
The post Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran Considers Removing Hezbollah Leader Naim Qassem
Lebanon’s Hezbollah Chief Naim Qassem gives a televised speech from an unknown location, July 30, 2025, in this screen grab from video. Photo: Al Manar TV/REUTERS TV/via REUTERS
i24 News – Iran is reportedly dissatisfied with the performance of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem and is preparing to reorganize the group’s leadership, potentially removing him from his position, according to a report by Emirati outlet Erem News citing senior Lebanese diplomatic sources.
The report claims Tehran views Qassem as “unsuitable to lead Hezbollah at this critical stage,” arguing that he has failed to meet the leadership standards set by his predecessor, longtime Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.
Iranian officials are said to believe Qassem lacks sufficient political acumen and hold him responsible for the deterioration in relations between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state.
According to Erem News, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is expected to oversee preparations for restructuring Hezbollah’s internal leadership during an upcoming visit to Beirut.
The visit is intended to assess the organization’s internal climate through direct meetings with senior Hezbollah figures and influential operatives.
“The Iranian minister seeks to monitor the general climate within Hezbollah and convey an accurate picture of the internal situation to decision-makers in Tehran,” the report said, adding that the findings would be used to inform “crucial decisions regarding anticipated changes at the head of the organization, most notably the fate of Naim Qassem.”
Uncategorized
Iran’s Foreign Minister to Visit Russia and Belarus, Foreign Ministry Says
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2025. Photo: Hamid Forootan/Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran‘s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araqchi, will visit Russia and Belarus in the next two to three days, foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Sunday.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian met Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Turkmenistan on Friday.
Uncategorized
Ukraine Drops NATO Goal as Trump Envoy Sees Progress in Peace Talks
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy looks on at a stakeout during the 80th United Nations General Assembly in New York City, U.S., September 23, 2025. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
President Volodymyr Zelensky offered to drop Ukraine’s aspirations to join the NATO military alliance as he held five hours of talks with US envoys in Berlin on Sunday to end the war with Russia, with negotiations set to continue on Monday.
Trump‘s envoy Steve Witkoff said “a lot of progress was made” as he and Trump‘s son-in-law Jared Kushner met Zelensky in the latest push to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War Two, though full details were not divulged.
Zelensky’s adviser Dmytro Lytvyn said the president would comment on the talks on Monday once they were completed. Officials, Lytvyn said, were considering the draft documents.
“They went on for more than five hours and ended for today with an agreement to resume tomorrow morning,” Lytvyn told reporters in a WhatsApp chat.
Ahead of the talks, Zelensky offered to drop Ukraine’s goal to join NATO in exchange for Western security guarantees.
The move marks a major shift for Ukraine, which has fought to join NATO as a safeguard against Russian attacks and has such an aspiration included in its constitution. It also meets one of Russia’s war aims, although Kyiv has so far held firm against ceding territory to Moscow.
“Representatives held in-depth discussions regarding the 20-point plan for peace, economic agendas, and more. A lot of progress was made, and they will meet again tomorrow morning,” Witkoff said in a post on X.
The talks were hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who a source said had made brief remarks before leaving the two sides to negotiate. Other European leaders are also due in Germany for talks on Monday.
“From the very beginning, Ukraine’s desire was to join NATO, these are real security guarantees. Some partners from the US and Europe did not support this direction,” Zelensky said in answer to questions from reporters in a WhatsApp chat.
“Thus, today, bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the US, Article 5-like guarantees for us from the U.S., and security guarantees from European colleagues, as well as other countries — Canada, Japan — are an opportunity to prevent another Russian invasion,” Zelensky said.
“And it is already a compromise on our part,” he said, adding the security guarantees should be legally binding.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly demanded Ukraine officially renounce its NATO ambitions and withdraw troops from the about 10% of Donbas which Kyiv still controls. Moscow has also said Ukraine must be a neutral country and no NATO troops can be stationed in Ukraine.
Russian sources said earlier this year that Putin wants a “written” pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the US-led NATO alliance eastwards – shorthand for formally ruling out membership to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and other former Soviet republics.
Sending Witkoff, who has led negotiations with Ukraine and Russia on a US peace proposal, appeared to be a signal that Washington saw a chance of progress nearly four years after Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Under pressure from Trump to sign a peace deal that initially backed Moscow’s demands, Zelensky accused Russia of dragging out the war through deadly bombings of cities and Ukraine’s power and water supplies.
A ceasefire along the current front lines would be a fair option, he added.
“CRITICAL MOMENT”
Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said it was a “good sign” Trump had sent his envoys while fielding questions in an interview with the ZDF broadcaster on the suitability of Witkoff and Kushner, two businessmen, as negotiators.
“It’s certainly anything but an ideal setup for such negotiations. That much is clear. But as they say, you can only dance with the people on the dance floor,” Pistorius said.
On the issue of Ukraine’s offer to give up its NATO aspirations in exchange for security guarantees, Pistorius said Ukraine had bitter prior experience of relying on security assurances. Kyiv had in 1994 agreed to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in exchange for territorial guarantees from the US, Russia and Britain.
“Therefore, it remains to be seen to what extent this statement Zelensky has now made will actually hold true, and what preconditions must be met,” Pistorius said.
“This concerns territorial issues, commitments from Russia and others,” he said, adding mere security guarantees, especially without significant US involvement, “wouldn’t be worth much.”
Britain, France and Germany have been working to refine the US proposals, which in a draft disclosed last month called for Kyiv to cede more territory, abandon its NATO ambitions and accept limits on its armed forces.
European allies have described this as a “critical moment” that could shape Ukraine’s future, and sought to shore up Kyiv’s finances by leveraging frozen Russian central bank assets to fund Kyiv’s military and civilian budget.