Pesachim 118 a, b

And today's daf is a tough one for me.  Difficult both in its meaning and in its reasoning.

Two very difficult ideas:
1) the toil of working is twice as difficult as the pain of childbirth, and
2) every person is rewarded or punished according to his/her ability to withstand that reward/punishment

There is some discussion noted regarding these ancient opinions, but those discussions do not mitigate the damage done by the words themselves.  Generations have been influenced by these ideas; ideas that are judgmental, lacking in compassion, and unverifiable.  These ideas blame victims for their own suffering and minimize the pain of labour - in a time when women often died in childbirth.

Much of amud (a) rejoices in homiletic explanations of why we recite the Great Hillel.  Hillel includes praise for G-d regarding the exodus from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, giving the Torah, resurrecting the dead, and the pangs of the Messiah.  The Great Hillel also includes praise for G-d "who gives food to all flesh," (Psalms 136:25).  I find these challenging, for I am not convinced that verses from the Tanach can be so definitively interpreted and applied, especially when those interpretations consistently benefit the rabbis and their system of leadership.

The daf goes on to tell a story about these 'messianic pangs', including fiery furnaces and ministering angels of hail and fire.  It tells other stories of the parting of the Red Sea that I have not come across in the past: the fish praise G-d and the Kishon River plays a significant role in the redemption of the Jewish people.

Much of today's learning is based on Psalms.  Sadly I have little knowledge of these tehilim, and so I find myself lost in the arguments and proof texts.  It seems that the rabbis focus on Rome and other non-Jewish centres in their conversations.

It is a strange experience, being humbled and feeling righteous at the same time.  I recognize that I know next to nothing about the wisdom of our Sages.  They held miraculous amounts of information in their minds, and they were able to access and apply that information in high-stress, challenging situations.  I know little of their lives, their languages, their expertise.  And yet it is evident that they were simply human beings who were desperate to establish themselves as powerful, like the rest of us, to ensure the physical and psychological safety of themselves and their families.  So it is impossible for me to read their words without critique.