Every year, as the High Holidays are approaching, I find that a lot of people ask me how things are going. Sometimes in jest, “Hey Rabbi, how are things going?” sometimes out of curiosity, “Rabbi, how are things going?” Sometimes, out of concern for my sanity, “Rabbi, how are things going?” As you can imagine, the High Holidays are an incredibly busy time of year for the staff and volunteers in a synagogue, with countless logistics, meetings, and coordination that has to take place.
For Rabbis, or at least for this one, my High Holiday preparations are dominated by the prospect of having to write and deliver sermons. For whatever reason, there is a certain mystique around the High Holiday sermon. As if it is supposed to be better researched, or more scholarly, or longer than usual. Don’t worry, my High Holiday sermons are about the same length as my weekly Shabbat sermons.
But for some reason, I do feel the need to put more into them. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services bring our entire community together. Plus, our synagogue is filled with guests and visitors. It really is a special moment, a unique opportunity.
We come to synagogue on the High Holidays with the expectation, or at least the hope, to be inspired, or even transformed. No pressure.
I have spoken on many occasions about how our tradition teaches us to prepare for the Days of Awe. With introspection and soul-searching, reviewing our actions from the previous year and asking ourselves how we can make amends for those times when we have gone astray. Only if we have done all of this soul-work does the day of Yom Kippur truly result in atonement. In short, Yom Kippur only works if we do teshuvah first.
And so, it is a time for going deep into ourselves, and reaching out to those people whose lives touch ours. It is a uniquely inward experience.
The irony for me, as I preach about it, is that there is a part of me that recognizes that this is one of those “do as I say, not as I do” moments. The experience of a Rabbi on the High Holidays is unique. Instead of preparing for a deeply personal experience, I prepare to help guide a community of hundreds of people through these holy days.
Turning inward in teshuvah is, to say the least, a challenge when I am so focused on finding an idea that I think might be relevant, and that will speak to, the hundreds of Jews who I know will be coming through these doors during the High Holidays. Basically, we Rabbis guess. All year long, I find myself on the alert for ideas, stories, and anecdotes that might be interesting. When I hear one, I think to myself, “That would make a great High Holiday sermon!” and I file it away in the back of my mind.
For me, writing High Holiday sermons is a gut-wrenching experience. The truth is, there is nothing special about me that makes what I have to say any more relevant or valid than what anyone else has to say. I may have the title “Rabbi” in front of my name, but it does not give me any special wisdom. I try to always remember this by asking myself: “Who the heck are you? How do you get off doing this?”
When I stand up here to speak, I am really just talking to myself. That is the only thing I can do and remain true to my neshamah, my soul. As I wrestle with topics for these sermons, I eventually wind up, whether consciously or unconsciously, choosing something that I am wrestling with in my own life. Something that has been a struggle for me. For Rosh Hashanah this year, that meant the ability to slow down and think before reacting in stressful situations, and my role as a father in guiding my children towards their dreams, rather than living out my failures through them.
Something happens in the course of writing a sermon. The challenge of taking deep-seated emotions, hints of feelings, fragments of thoughts, and extracting them, and coalescing them into something that I can put into words and articulate to a room full of people is transformative. I learn something about myself every time I go through the experience.
If you have ever taught anything, you know that you have only truly mastered a subject when you can teach it to others. A Rabbi has not truly dealt with an issue until he or she has grappled with it before a congregation.
And just when I think I have wrapped it all up, there is always that person who comes up afterwards with a question, or a counterargument, that makes me reconsider everything I had thought.
I have been transformed by you, by all of the people whom I have been blessed to come into contact with. That is why the High Holidays, for me, are a period of introspection and personal growth. As stressful as this process can be, I feel fortunate that this is my job.
And so, I put the challenge to all of us. What is your sermon?
What have you learned in the past year through your successes and even more importantly, through your failures and regrets? What have you learned from your education? What have you learned from your marriage, or your divorce? What have you learned from working? Form building a home? From raising children?
What has happened to you that has taught you something about life? How could you share that lesson with someone else?
If you had 10 minutes to stand up in font of everyone you care about in the world, and tell them the most important things you know, what would you say?
It is said that we all have a Torah to teach. A Torah of our lives. Take the next 24 hours and think about it. How can your life experience transform you and your loved ones? Find someone with whom you can share your Torah, and from whose Torah you can learn, and sit down and have a conversation.
Category Archives: Divrei Torah (Weekly Sermons)
Sacrificing Our Children on the Altar of Our Dreams – Rosh Hashanah 5773, Day 2
As a Rabbi, I often find myself in conversations about this morning’s Torah portion. It is a particularly troubling story. Surely, there are other passages in the Bible that provoke modern sensibilities as much. That our people has gone out of its way to read this one every Rosh Hashanah might explain why it tugs so much at our conscience.
Abraham is asked by God, in a test of his faith, to slaughter his son Isaac as a burnt offering. Driven by his love for God, Abraham responds to the call with unwavering determination. Without hesitation, he gathers the supplies, sets out with Isaac and two servants on their three day journey, ascends the mountain, builds an altar, binds his son to it, and brandishes the knife.
The actions in the story are quick and precise. Abraham expresses no doubts about this demand from the same God who had promised that his offspring would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the earth.
Of course, we know nothing about Abraham’s inner state of mind. There are no adjectives, and no descriptions of emotion throughout the story.
Modern readers are almost universally horrified, first of all by God’s seemingly cruel request, and secondly by Abraham’s willingness to carry it out without even raising an objection.
At the end of the story, Abraham is rewarded for his demonstration of absolute commitment to God, and is blessed once again with the promise of countless descendants.
He never does have to kill his son. At the last minute, God sends the angel to stay Abraham’s hand. It was only a test, it turned out, to see just how far Abraham would be willing to go to express his love for God. Apparently, he was ready to go all the way.
Traditionally, this story is understood to be a lesson in faith. But it also has something to say to us about relationships between parents and children.
Perhaps that is why so many of us react to it so personally. In idealizing Abraham’s love for God as something we should strive for, it alienates most of the people with whom I speak, who want nothing to do with that kind of faith. Why should Isaac have to suffer this traumatic, near-death experience so that his dad can realize his dream of giving up everything for God?
Our kids are too precious. How can we even think of sacrificing our children on the altar of our dreams?
In these conversations, nobody ever comes to Abraham’s defense. But I think I understand what Abraham might have been going through: his eagerness to project his own aspirations in life on to his child, as well as his inability to deviate from the course he has set once he has embarked.
This is a pattern that is repeated in every generation, up to the present day. The truth is, parents do bind their children to what is important to them all of the time, and children never fully escape from those bonds.
One of the most well-known mitzvot in the entire Torah appears in the Ten Commandments. Honor your father and your mother. It is said that we owe a unique obligation to our parents, because it is they, along with God, who bring us into the world. That is the reason that children spend an entire year reciting the mourner’s kaddish when a parent passes away. It is our special obligation to them.
But there is another way to look at it, and it is not so explicitly stipulated in the Torah. We did not ask to be born. We have been brought into this world against our will – by our parents. It is they, therefore, who owe us. Parents, according to our tradition, are responsible for providing kids with an education, teaching them a trade, teaching them how to swim and by extension, how to be safe. Jews are also responsible for transmitting Torah to the next generation, as well as imparting compassion and morality.
And so, parents play a critical role in the dreams of children, as they should.
But sometimes, the lines between a parent’s dreams for him or herself, and a child’s dreams become blurred. Our parents expect to fulfill their dreams through us, and those of us who are parents hope to fulfill our own dream through our kids. This can sometimes result in unrealistic, and even unhealthy burdens. Children become bound to the altar of their parents’ dreams.
We can all relate to this, because all of us are children. We all have parents, in some cases parents who were not present, but we all come from somewhere. Think of the ways in which our parents’ lives, their decisions, have bound us, and continue to bind us. Think of how we measure success and failure for ourselves.
Am I struggling to live up to an impossible standard that was set, either explicitly or implicitly by a parent? An expectation to succeed financially, or intellectually, or perhaps to be the perfect mother and wife, or father and husband?
Are the standards by which each of us measures ourselves truly ours, or have we inherited them from a previous generation?
And what are we doing to the next generation? And by this we include both those who have kids of their own, as well as those who are aunts or uncles, friends, and members of a community like ours, in which we pride ourselves on caring about one another’s children.
Consider the stereotypes that we see in movies, TV, books, and maybe even in real life:
An embarrassed and reluctant son who is forced to perform a dance routine in front of adult dinner guests.
A daughter who is pushed by an overbearing parent in elementary school or even earlier to go to an Ivy League university.
A child who is expected to take over the family business, despite having other aspirations.
But really, consider the many ways in which parents place the burden of success on their children for something in which they themselves failed.
I am not saying that parents should not set any expectations for their kids. God forbid. I fear a society in which parents release themselves from the obligation to impart a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, to the next generation.
Parents are obligated to provide a moral education for their children, as well as to encourage their children to set lofty goals which they then help them reach. But it is important for parents to consider their motivations. Are we pushing our children for their sakes, or for ours?
At first glance, it would seem that Isaac is bound to the altar for the sole purpose of his father’s religious zeal. Our tradition has been uncomfortable with Isaac’s apparent passivity. That discomfort has prompted much discussion through the millennia. A widely-accepted midrash suggests that Isaac was thirty seven years old at the time, a grown man. This means that he willingly accepted his role as the sacrifice, even encouraging his father to bind him so that he would not be able to escape if he changed his mind.
The story in the Torah begins by informing us that God put Abraham to the test. A midrash*1* suggests that it was an even greater test for Isaac, for several reasons. Abraham, until the very end, could have put down the knife. Indeed, he was stopped at the last minute. Isaac, on the other hand, in allowing himself to be bound, had no way to change his mind, thus his obedience was even more complete. Also, Abraham received his instructions directly from God. Isaac only heard it second-hand through the mouth of his extremely elderly 137 year old father, yet he did not for a moment doubt the truth of what was being demanded, or question his dad’s senility. It is surely a heroic act of bravery and trust.
Isaac is permanently affected by this experience. It seems that he never recovers. We have no record in the Torah of any later interactions between him and his father. Further, he appears as a passive figure, living a quiet life, and being duped and manipulated by his wife and children. A midrash suggests that the blindness Isaac suffers later in life is the result of angels’ tears falling into his eyes while he is bound on the altar.
Abraham, because of this story, is known as the great lover of God. Isaac, also from this story, is known as the great fearer of God. Whose is the greater legacy? Well, the story has come to be known as Akedat Yitzchak, the Binding of Isaac. The midrashim suggest that Isaac was somehow fulfilling his own dreams, expressing his own relationship to God in his way, just as his father did.
As we begin this new year, we consider our lives. God reads from the Book of Remembrance to review our deeds, while we measure ourselves against our own expectations of success. We owe it to ourselves, and our kids, to consider the legacy that our parents have imparted to us, and that we pass along.
We will close with a Jewish story about a mother bird and her young. As you listen, think about the obligations that children and parents owe one another.
Consider whether we are binding the next generation to our dreams for their sake, or for ours.
What are our dreams? What do we hope to pass down? And what dreams of our children can we step back and watch with pride as they develop them for themselves?
There once was a mother bird who knew it was time to migrate to warmer lands. In order to get to the place where she went every year, she would have to cross a great sea. She began to get ready for the long journey. Knowing that her three fledglings were too young yet to fly, especially over such a great distance, she decided to take the three little birds on her back. She loved her children, and she was willing to do anything in the world for them.
And so the little birds got on their mother’s back, and the mother bird began to fly. At first, the flight was easy enough. “Carrying my own young is never too burdensome,” thought the mother bird. But as time went by, the little birds began to feel heavier and, after the first day, then the second, and finally the third day, the mother bird was tired.
“My child, my birdling,” asked the mother bird of the little bird sitting in front, “Tell me the truth. When I get old and will have no strength to fly across such an ocean, will you take me on your back and fly me across?”
“No mama,” answered the fledgling.
‘What? You disregard the mitzva of respect for your parent?” said the mother bird. And in anger she threw the little bird into the sea.
Then she turned to the second of her young and said, “Tell me the truth, my child, my birdling. When I get old and will have no strength to fly such a great distance, will you take me on your back and fly me across?”
“No mama,” answered the second fledgling.
Again the mother bird became angry. “Indeed! You disregard the mitzva of respect for your parent.” And the mother bird threw the young one in to the sea.
With a hurt-filled heart, the mother bird turned to the third fledgling. Speaking in a guarded tone, she asked, “My child, my dear sweet fledgling, tell me the truth. When I get old and will have no strength to fly over such a big sea, will you take me on your back and fly me across?”
And the third fledgling answered, “My mother, I can’t promise to do that. I may not be able to fly you across a sea because I may be busy flying my own children on my back just as you are doing for me.”
When the mother bird heard this answer, she laughed with a joyful sound, and she and her fledgling continued on their flight.
*1*Iturei Torah, vol. 7, p. 37
*2* “An Offspring’s Answer” in Jewish Stories One Generation Tells Another, by Penina Schram, p. 454.
Recalculating – Rosh Hashanah 5773, Day 1
There is a technological gadget that has become almost ubiquitous in the last decade. It models a behavior that all of us might want to emulate. It is a device upon which many of us have come to rely to find our way in the world: The Global Positioning Satellite – the GPS.
You type in your destination on your smartphone or computer that is built into your car, and a miracle happens. It talks to a satellite orbiting 11,000 miles over your head, and then tells you exactly how to get to where you want to go. It even gives you turn by turn directions – even the new iPhone can do this. It estimates how long your trip is going to take. It warns you about the traffic you will find along the way, and if you want, it points out the gas stations that you will pass.
I am sure that there are a few people in this room who actually understand how this works. But for me, my GPS is an absolute miracle.
This nice lady, with a pleasant voice, calmly tells me where to go. And if I don’t follow her instructions, either because I wasn’t paying attention, or because I think I know better – and I am always wrong whenever that happens – she never loses her cool. The nice lady does not fret, get angry, turn herself off, feel guilty, or demand to be comforted.
No, she does something different. She says, in her calm voice: “recalculating.”
Ten times in a row, I ignore her advice. I drive seventeen miles off course, I swear at her for remaining so even-tempered, and she remains calm, and focused on the goal. Recalculating. Continually recalculating. Adjusting to any changes, surmounting any new obstacles to which my reckless wanderings have led.
Alas, it is much easier for the nice lady than it is for us.
I heard this suggestion about the GPS in an interview earlier this year with Dr. Sylvia Boorstein.*1* Raised in a traditional Jewish household, she embraced Buddhism and now is a teacher at the Spirit Rock Meditation Center in the North Bay. Among her several books is That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Buddhist, in which she shows that a person can be both an observant Jew and a committed Buddhist.
In the interview, Dr. Boorstein spoke about what happens to a person when he or she experiences tension – when our path in life does not follow the route that we have mapped out for ourselves and we get off course. We all experience anxiety. Sure, some of us become more overwhelmed by it than others. But the simple act of living means that we will encounter adversity. No matter what happens, no matter how much we try to insulate ourselves, some things are not going to go our way.
There are many different types of experiences that cause tension, from the seemingly trite to the highly significant. Somebody cuts you off in line at the grocery store. You get in a fender bender. The person who has been your partner for all these years leaves you. You are diagnosed with a life-altering medical condition.
When something happens that produces anxiety, how do you react? What is your response to tension?
Dr. Boorstein describes our initial, instinctive response as a glitch of neurology, one of five genetic fallback behaviors that we revert to when we are challenged. While some of us succumb to these glitches more intensely than others, we all have a gut reaction. These are the five: we fret, we get angry, we lose heart, we feel guilty, or we seek sensual soothing. Of course, we probably exhibit all of these reactions from time to time, but one of these five behaviors, according to Boorstein, is dominant in each one of us.
Which of these five typologies do you fall into?
The first group responds to tension by fretting. “When in doubt, worry.” Let’s say I am supposed to meet someone outside a restaurant at 5:00. It’s already 5:15 and he’s still not there. Where could he be? What happened? Maybe he had a heart attack. God forbid he was in a traffic accident. That siren I hear in the distance must be the ambulance taking him to the emergency room.
The second type of response is anger. People in this group respond to anxiety by lashing out at others. It might be that the source of tension is the other person, and so you let ’em have it. But often, we misplace our anger by snapping at the first person who happens to come along. You have a bad day at work. Your boss yelled at you. And so you take out your frustration on your kids when you get home.
The third type of gut reaction is losing heart. That is when a person’s energy just evaporates. You want to back off and flee from whatever the confrontation is. You get tired, and would rather just go to sleep in the hope that if you avoid the situation, it will go away. But it never goes away.
The fourth group responds to tension with guilt. Whenever something bad happens, you immediately think it is your fault.
The fifth type of reaction is to seek sensual soothing. You get in a fight with your partner, and so you go home and inhale an entire carton of ice cream. Or drink a bottle of wine, or take drugs.
So which are you? What is your innate, gut response to tension?
Whichever group you would place yourself in, I bet that, like me, you wish you didn’t always respond that way to stressful situations. Have you had the experience of getting angry, and then wishing that you had kept your cool? Or taking on guilt for a problem you did not cause? Or having a stomach ache the day after you drowned your sorrows in mint chocolate chip?
Dr. Boorstein suggests that, rather than succumb to that response, that we instead recognize that our tendency to fret, or get angry, or lose heart, or feel guilty, or reach for the ice cream, is just our particular glitch kicking in. In fact, there are alternative courses of action. There are a lot of other things that we could do. Sometimes, just by recognizing something about ourselves, we are able to transcend it. When we experience that challenging moment and the anger starts to rise, just say “oh, that’s the part of me that gets angry responding to tension.” That frees us up for a different response. It frees us up to respond like the nice lady in the GPS. Think of what it might be like if, when we get off course, we could first pause to recalculate.
In the Torah portion that we read today, on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, we see a number of characters experiencing stressful situations. Situations that bring out their natural fallback responses – to unfortunate outcomes.
At the beginning of our reading, God has finally taken note of Sarah and blessed her with a son, Isaac. At the party that Abraham throws for Isaac’s weaning, Sarah sees Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, playing with Isaac in a way that she does not like. She reverts immediately to her fallback behavior. She becomes angry. Turning to Abraham, she demands that he banish her son’s tormentor, along with his mother, Hagar.
This sets up the next character, Abraham, who is extremely upset by the situation. His response is to fret. He knows that what Sarah has asked of him is wrong, but the stress of the situation, of being placed between his wife’s anger and Hagar and Ishmael’s lives causes him to worry and prevents him from taking decisive action. It is only when God instructs Abraham to listen to Sarah, because God will protect Hagar and Ishmael, that Abraham is able to make a decision.
Hagar and Ishmael are now exiled in the wilderness, and they have run out of food and water. Hagar succumbs to her fallback glitch and loses heart. She cannot bear to see her son die, and so she places Ishmael beneath a bush some distance away so that she will not have to witness his suffering. The situation has rendered her powerless, incapable not only of making a decision, but of even being present for her son.
While the responses of each of these characters are essential to the story and give it its punch, we still can wonder how things might have been different if they had recognized their natural fallback glitches. Sarah might have seen Ishmael’s actions, and instead of allowing her anger to overcome her, might have instead recognized it, set it aside, and reached out to Hagar to find a collaborative approach for dealing with Ishmael’s wild behavior.
Abraham, instead of absorbing all of the anxiety of the triangle in which he found himself, might have instead called a family meeting to try and mediate between the two women in his household.
For her part, Hagar might have recognized her urge to flee from her son’s suffering and instead comfort him. In so doing, she might have discovered, on her own, the well that it took an angel to reveal.
Of course, this is all just conjecture. But it illustrates the point that our future is determined not only by those events that happen to us, but also by the ways in which we respond to those events. Our reactions often lead us further off course.
I have always found interesting the way that we celebrate the world’s birthday. To celebrate such a majestic event, we turn inward, and assess our lives in a process called cheshbon hanefesh, taking account of our souls. The traditional language uses words like sin and forgiveness, confession and atonement. Practically speaking, we take an honest look at our lives and note those times when we have not lived up to our potential, when we have been less than we could be.
The process of teshuvah, repentance, suggests that we can address those times when we came up short and fundamentally change ourselves in the year ahead. Our patterns of behavior are not permanently locked in. We can become better.
If we have been doing the work that is asked of us, we have identified lots of mistakes in the past year. The question we face every Rosh Hashanah is how to actually change. It is relatively easy to apologize for a particular wrong, and make restitution.
I embarrassed my friend in public, so I go to her and apologize, confess the wrong I did and acknowledge the pain it caused, and hopefully repair the relationship.
But when it comes to changing deep-seated behaviors that are part of our very make-up, it is a different story. Recognizing those reactions as our innate fallback responses might actually be helpful. It might make it possible for us to respond differently, and take control of our future in a way that enables us to be the kind of people we want to be.
This is not going to work every time. Overcoming instinctive behaviors takes a tremendous effort. Unlike the even-tempered lady in the GPS, whose personality is controlled by software, we are human beings. But imagine what a different person you could be if you could stop yourself and recalculate. Imagine what a different world this would be if we could all do that.
We are just now taking our first steps into the new year. It is a fantastic opportunity to chart a course to become our best selves. We do not know what the new year holds in store, but it is safe to say that there will be blessing and joy, just as there will be sorrow and loss. When that thing happens to push us off course, and it will, let’s try to remember to take a breath, recognize what our fallback response is telling us to do, and then push ourselves to try something different: recalculating.
*1*Interview with Krista Tippett on March 29, 2012, broadcast on the podcast On Being (http://www.onbeing.org/program/what-we-nurture/242)
Abortion in Judaism – Shoftim 5772
I imagine you heard about the particularly insensitive, offensive, and misguided comments by Missouri Representative Todd Akin earlier this week. Just to review, in case you missed it, he said in an interview with regard to his position on abortion in the case of rape that pregnancy in such situations is “really rare” and that “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” He claimed that this was based on something a doctor had said.
These comments prompted a frenzy over the past week, in which the Republican Party denounced Akin and asked him to step out of the race, and individuals and groups throughout the media and across the political spectrum jumped in. Akin later apologized for his use of the term “legitimate rape,” claiming that he had misspoken, and was really talking about forcible rape. He also admitted that rape does sometimes result in pregnancy. But he reiterated his opposition to abortion.
In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists this week stated that, “each year in the U.S., 10,000 to 15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest.” The number that are carried to term is unknown.
Setting aside the Representative’s inflammatory comments, and his apparent ignorance of basic reproductive science, his comments raise questions that Jews often wonder about.
What does Judaism have to say abortion? Do the circumstances matter? What about in the case of rape?
This issue also presents an even broader question: On an issue like abortion, which has come to be such a divisive public policy issue, how should our community posture itself?
Regarding the question of abortion according to Jewish law, the Torah, in the Book of Exodus, presents a legal situation that helps us understand the issue. If two men are fighting, and one of them accidentally strikes a pregnant woman standing nearby, such that she suffers a miscarriage, the punishment for that man is a fine. It is not considered to be murder, because the fetus does not yet have the status of being a person.
Based on this, the Rabbis of the Mishnah, two thousand years ago, discuss a situation in which a woman is going through a difficult labor, such that her own life is at risk. When that happens, an abortion is to be performed because the life of the mother takes precedence. Once a majority of the fetus’s body has emerged from the womb, however, it is considered to be a person whose life is of equal status.
In Judaism, therefore, personhood begins at birth. The fetus is not a human being, although it does have some status as a “partial nefesh,” a partial life, on the way to becoming a full human being. Abortion is permitted at any point during pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother. Over the centuries, there were differences in opinion with regard to how liberal to be in permitting abortions, but nobody disagrees about that basic principal.
In modern times, medical advances and our understanding of human psychology have required us to address concerns that traditional sources could not consider.
The Conservative Movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has addressed these questions in several different Teshuvot, or Jewish legal rulings. A 1983 decision held that “an abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective.”*1*
Our concern with psychological harm to the mother grants a lot of latitude to a Jewish woman wrestling with this decision. Certainly in a case of rape, or some other traumatic situation, a woman should be free to make the decision that she feels is right for her. But because the fetus still has some sort of status as a potential future person, other reasons for a termination might be problematic under Jewish law.
So Judaism’s stance on abortion is somewhat nuanced. It’s limited permissiveness is not based on a woman’s right to control her own body, but upon the principal of saving the mother’s life.
On a public issue like this one, in which the impact is on the choices available to individual Americans, and in which Judaism has a particular religious position that would guide Jewish women’s decision-making, what should the Jewish community’s posture be?
Is the abortion debate in America something that Judaism ought to have a say in?
It is an interesting question, because Jewish law falls somewhere in the middle between those who think that all abortions should be outlawed and those who hold that there should be no restrictions whatsoever, and that women should be free to choose.
But there are other issues at stake. Because many, if not most, of those who would outlaw abortions, hold their positions out of religious conviction. And so what we have is members of particular religious communities seeking to impose their religious beliefs on every individual in the country. If this were to happen, it would mean that observant Jewish women facing a tragic situation would not be able to turn to our tradition for guidance. That right would be taken away, and the decision forced on them by a different religion.
The Jewish experience for thousands of years of living as a minority group under the domination of another culture, often a religiously affiliated culture, should make us particularly sensitive to religious coercion. In the United States, with its Constitutionally-guaranteed tradition of religious freedom, we are free to practice Judaism in a way that is completely unprecedented in the history of our people, which is is why we should be concerned about attempts to restrict access to abortion.
And because the nuanced Jewish position says that we look at each case individually, and the circumstances that each woman is facing, the Jewish community has an interest in the government not placing limits on abortion access. It should be left as a decision between a woman, her doctor, and anyone else whom she chooses to consult with, whether a partner, a friend, or a religious counselor.
This morning’s Torah portion, Shoftim, is all about the requirement to establish a society that is governed with a concern for justice. Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof, we read at the beginning of the parashah. “Justice, justice you shall pursue.”
In ancient Israel, great emphasis was placed on creating a system protected the rights of individuals, that was fair to all, that provided opportunities for people to advance in life, and that did not favor the rich over the poor.
Ever since, Jews have been involved in this pursuit of a just society. This was true when Jews had autonomy, and it was also true when Jews were living as citizens in the countries in which they resided.
That is why we have a special awareness of how a religious majority can impose its tyranny over other groups. For that reason, it should be of particular concern to the Jewish community that the government should not be involved in restricting access to abortion services based on a particular religious outlook. In some senses, it comes down to a matter of religious freedom, as well as to justice.
*1*CJLS Responsa 1980-1990, p. 817.
Holy Fighting, Not Holy War – Korach 5772
If we look at the long span of human history and think of all of the wars that have been waged in God’s name, with all of the suffering and destruction that has been caused, I think we can probably all agree that waging holy war is probably not a recipe for a life of holiness.
But there is a difference between holy war and holy fighting. Holy war is when one person, or one side, claims to speak on God’s behalf, and tries to impose its interpretation of God’s will on an opponent by force.
Holy fighting is something entirely different. As thinking and reasoning human beings, we disagree by our very nature. It is inevitable that we will argue with each other, and even fight. But there is a way to fight that is holy. A way that preserves human dignity and promotes constructive solutions to the problems that arise between us.
This morning’s Parshah, Korach, includes the biggest internal threat to Moses’ leadership in the entire Torah. Korach, Datan, Aviram, and 250 other Israelites band together to challenge Moses and Aaron’s leadership.
While pulling back the layers of their argument can be somewhat tricky, it is clear from the outcome of the story that Korach’s claims are not just. Moses and Aaron have not abused their positions, and Korach is after personal power and prestige, despite his populist rhetoric.
The rabbinic tradition holds up this episode as the model for an argument that is based on the wrong things. Mishnah Avot, composed nearly two thousand years ago, teaches the following: “Every disagreement that is for the sake of Heaven, its end will endure. But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, its end will not endure.” Then it asks for examples. “What is an argument for the sake of Heaven? The arguments of the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. And one that is not for the sake of Heaven? The arguments of Korach and his company.” (Mishnah Avot 5,17)
From this morning’s parshah. We know that Heaven frowned upon Korach’s claim, because he and his followers are consumed by fire, and swallowed up by the earth. But what of the argument for the sake of heaven? What is it about the disagreements between the schools of Hillel and Shammai that is so holy.
The Talmud records an argument that once took place between the two schools that went on for three years. Each school claimed that the law followed its position. At the end of three years, a bat kol, a heavenly voice came down and pronounced elu v’elu divrei elohim chayim. These and these are both the words of the living God, v’halachah k’veit Hillel, but the law is according to the school of Hillel.
This is a theologically rich story, with which we are not going to get too involved this morning. But when the follow-up question is asked “Why did the school of Hillel merit that the law should follow its position?” the answer tells us something about the nature of holy fighting.
The students of the school of Hillel, we are told, were kind and modest. They would study both their own teachings as well as the teachings of their opponents, the school of Shammai. And not only that, they would mention the teachings of the school of Shammai before their own.
It is this style of arguing that our tradition finds so praiseworthy. Breaking this down, we can identify three elements modeled by the school of Hillel.
First, a kind and gentle attitude. Second, an eagerness to learn and understand the position of the other. And finally, not just giving respect to the opinions of one’s opponents, but verbally acknowledging and validating them.
This teaching comes in the context of a discussion of Jewish law, but it is really modeling how to approach situations any time there is a difference of opinion.
It asks us to respect those who disagree with us, to recognize them as human beings, and to acknowledge that they are motivated with just as much passion as we are. This is not to say that every claim is a just one, or that we should be any less fervent in our beliefs. Just that we recognize that as human beings, we are limited in our knowledge, and we can never really know the Truth (with a capital T) or understand the mind of God.
The world is filled with disagreements. There are the big ones, between countries, and ethnic groups. And then there are the small ones, the ones that take place between individuals. We all get in disagreements. We fight with those who are closest to us, our partners, our children, parents, siblings, friends. The question we must ask ourselves is: When we fight, how can we do it with holiness?
Whenever we argue, whether we are the ones who started it or whether it is the other person, our natural inclination is to be defensive. To interrupt, or to yell. To not really listen to what the other person is saying. Or to trade insult for insult. It is simple Newtonian physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You push me by starting an argument, I’m going to push back. But all that does is raise the pressure in the middle. Even if someone “wins,” there is never any forward progress in the relationship
But the school of Hillel offers us a Jewish approach to holy fighting. Consider taking a different approach the next time you find yourself in an argument.
Let the other person speak first, and let them say everything they have to say. Then before jumping to your counter-argument, let your opponent know that you have heard them. Validate the fact that they have an opinion and feelings, and that you have heard them, and have tried to understand them. Reflect back what you just heard.
Then, say what you are feeling. But do it without accusing, and without judging. You might be familiar with the concept of I/You statements. I felt X when you did Y. It is a technique often used with kids to try to help them settle their differences, but it is a great tool for reconciliation among adults as well.
Here is how it works. We tend to fight with You statements. Using blame and judgment. A You statement might go like this, and by the way this is a completely hypothetical example: “You hurt my feelings when you went to watch TV instead of helping me do the dishes.” That is going to be put me on the defensive. It is blaming me for hurting the other person.
An I statement, however, would say the same thing, but make a few subtle changes. “I felt hurt and ignored when you went to watch TV while I did the dishes.”
Notice there is no accusation, and no judgment in that statement. I felt hurt and ignored. Those are my feelings. Nobody can deny them, or take them away from me. The other person is now in a position of responding to his or her partners hurt feelings, rather than a personal attack.
It might surprise us to find that disagreements using this kind of language are somehow transformed from fights into problem-solving. Both parties end up feeling validated, are more likely to take responsibility for their actions and the results of their actions, and nobody feels attacked. Instead of us being opponents, facing each other with swords drawn, we end up being partners, joined at the hip, attacking the problem together. And that allows us, and our relationship to move forward.
The I/You technique is something that we can train ourselves to use, and it can make a huge difference in our lives. It can get us away from Korach arguments, and into Beit Hillel/Beit Shammai arguments.
Unfortunately, we have a bit less control over the fighting that takes place on the macro scale. The Korach-like, not for the sake of heaven, types of arguments seem to dominate the airwaves, including, sadly, among the Jewish people. This week, there was a terribly incendiary letter written by Rabbi Moshe Amar, the Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, a government employee paid with public funds. He was responding to an Israeli Supreme Court decision from a few weeks ago that ruled that non-Orthodox Rabbis, that is to say Reform and Conservative Rabbis, who are serving communities in kibbutzim and rural areas, should be paid as public servants with state funds. Israel does not have separation of church and state the way we do in America. The Rabbinate is a part of the government, and every community has a chief rabbi and a rabbinic council. Until this decision, only Orthodox Rabbis selected by the ultra-Orthodox dominated Rabbinate could serve in these functions, even though a significant majority of Israeli Jews are not Orthodox.
In response, Rabbi Amar wrote a letter, on official state letterhead, calling on all Jews to come to a rally this coming Tuesday to protest the decision. Listen to some of the language he used: He accuses the Reform and Conservative movements of “uproot[ing] and destroy[ing] Judaism” and says that we have “already brought horrendous destruction on the Jewish people in the Diaspora, by causing terrible assimilation and an uprooting of all of the fundamental principles of the Torah.” He is talking about us, in this room, right now, celebrating Shabbat together in joy.
Worst of all, he calls on Jews “to stop those who would sabotage [modern Hebrew: commit terrorism] and destroy the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts.”
This, at a time when Israel is facing the threat of Iran going nuclear. In a week in which terrorists crossed the border from the Sinai peninsula and attacked Israeli workers, killing one. And also in a week in which Hamas launched hundreds of missiles into Israel from Gaza. You want to talk about threats to the Jewish people, those are real threats.
The idea that the the biggest danger to the survival of Judaism is the Israeli government paying a few shekels to Reform and Conservative Rabbis, out of the Ministry for Sport and Culture no less, is not only ludicrous, but it is divisive, hate-filled, and undemocratic. And frankly, someone who is an employee of the state has no business calling on followers to overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court, nor of trying to impose a particular religious worldview on every Jew in the country. I understand that ultra-Orthodox communities have a very strict interpretation of Torah that opposes the approach of more liberal movements. But when any religious group uses its political power to coercively impose what it considers to be God’s will on the rest of the nation, that is bordering on holy war.
This is so far from the ideal demonstrated by the school of Hillel, whose students would behave gently, learn their opponents’ arguments, and respect them by acknowledging those arguments first.
This problem is pervasive in the world. In international politics, domestic politics, in the Jewish community, and in our own lives. I don’t know if there is much we can do to directly effect what is going on in other parts of the world, but we certainly can focus on ourselves.
Judaism guides us in every aspect of our lives. It is not just about what we do when come to synagogue. From the moment we wake up until the the time when we go to sleep, we are given the challenge of living lives of holiness.
When Korach challenged Moses, he said as much. Aren’t all the people holy? Yes they are, potentially, but Korach himself was not behaving all that holy. He was trying to gain power. But the idea of being holy is something that Judaism embraces. We can make any moment into a holy one. When we come to synagogue. When we celebrate Shabbat at home with our families. When we walk into a room with a mezuzah on the door. And yes, even when we fight. We have to learn how to fight holy, not engage in holy war.
Osher va’Osher – Behar-Bechukotai 5772
There is a cute greeting in Hebrew. You might say mazal tov! osher va’osher! Congratulations. May you have happiness and wealth.
The word osher, depending on how it is spelled, can mean two different things. With an aleph, osher means “happiness.” With an ayin, osher means “wealth,” as in material wealth.
It is a fascinating homophone.
You’ve probably heard the English expression, “Money can’t buy happiness.” The world is not quite so simplistic. Because money can certainly pay for a whole bunch of things that make life not only possible, but easier, and more enjoyable. Without enough money to satisfy our needs, a life of happiness and fulfillment becomes quite a challenge.
Nevertheless, the unrelenting pursuit of osher with an ayin, money, can indeed keep us from a life of osher with an aleph, happiness.
Isaac Arama was a fifteenth century Spanish Rabbi who published weekly sermons in a book called Aqaydat Yitzchaq. He goes so far as to say that “material possessions are a handicap to one’s efforts to determine true values.” Money gets in the way of a meaningful life.
But Arama is a realist. He acknowledges the importance of material possessions. Human beings have physical needs, and it is through labor that we acquire those things that we need to survive and to thrive. He cites the mishnah in Pirkei Avot: im ein kemach ein torah, im ein torah, ein kemach. “If there is no flour, there can be no Torah.” Material wealth is necessary to enable a person to study Torah. A person who is constantly struggling to put food on the table, to pay for health care, rent, and electricity, doesn’t have much time, or even peace of mind, to luxuriate on the development of his soul. Having enough material possessions makes it possible for us to acquire spiritual values. On the other hand, where there is no Torah, there is no flour. Without Torah, without the proper use of our material possessions, true living is not possible. Spiritual fulfillment cannot be achieved.
Maybe that is why we wish each other both osher va’osher. True happiness, true fulfillment, with the material blessings that make it possible.
But most human societies today do not offer a healthy balance of material and spiritual opportunities. Today, we face so much pressure to be always available for our jobs, to measure our success in life by how much stuff we have, and to never give ourselves a real break. We are constantly in pursuit of osher with an ayin, wealth. But do we do what we ought to truly cultivate osher with an aleph?
But this is not a dilemma only for the fast-paced twenty first century. Go back three thousand years and find that human beings were also struggling to find that balance.
Parashat Behar, the first of this morning’s double portion, begins with the laws of the Shemittah, the sabbatical year. Every seven years, the Israelite farmers are prohibited from working the land. Whatever it produces on its own will sustain them. Indeed, as long as the Israelites follow the rules, God promises to bless the land with so much abundance in the sixth year that there will be plenty of food throughout the seventh.
Interestingly, the beginning of God’s instructions are only partially directed towards the Israelites. “When you (Israelites) enter the land that I assign to you,”
וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַה’
“the land shall observe a sabbath of the Lord.” (Lev. 25:2)
Notice, the instruction is not given to the Israelites to let the land rest. The subject of the verb “observe a sabbath” is “the land.” We learn that the land also gets to rest. The land is personified.
What does it mean for the land to rest? There are a few details. First, there is to no agricultural work performed on the land or on trees. Second, anything the land produces on its own, all produce, is ownerless. Anybody can come and pick it. Jewish law forbids a farmer from putting up fences or gates around his fields, or stockpiling produce during the seventh year. Anyone is supposed to be able to come on to his property and pick whatever they want. Later on, in the book of Deuteronomy, a third rule is mentioned which refers to the cancellation of debts in the seventh year.
What is the reason for the shemitah. Why does the land get to rest?
One might say that it makes good economic sense to require a sabbatical year. After all, letting land lie fallow and rotating crops is good for farming. It enables the earth to regain nutrients, and ultimately to be more productive. There is certainly a connection between good agricultural practices and the laws of shemitah. But farmers should not need to be commanded to rotate their crops. They do it because it is good practice to do so. In fact, simply letting your fields lie fallow once every seven years would not be particularly effective. According to one scholar, ancient Israelites probably let their land lie fallow biennially, even though the Torah does not mention this. There must be something else to the Torah’s idea of shemitah.
Many scholars notice the similarities between the commandment to let the land rest every seven years, and for people to rest every seven days. Throughout the Torah, the only two things that are described as shabbat ladonai – a sabbath unto God – are the seventh day, and the seventh year. None of the holidays, not even Yom Kippur, is described as such. There is a close link between Shabbat and Shemitah.
The symbolic meaning of Shabbat is as a reminder of the Creation of the universe. Just as God rested on the seventh day after six days of creation, we rest on the seventh day.
To be clear, this is not meant to teach us the scientific origin of the world. It is meant to teach us about our relationship to the world. That the world belongs to God, and that we are ultimately dependent on God. Shabbat instills a sense of humility in human beings. By regularly spending a day not dominating our world, we are reminded that there is something greater than us. The shemitah, with its many similarities to Shabbat, embodies this lesson as well.
With regard to Shabbat, we are told that every living thing among us is entitled to rest: our son and our daughter, our male and female slaves, our animals, and the strangers living among us. During the shemitah year as well, the Torah lists everyone who is entitled to freely eat from anything the land produces: you, your male and female slaves, the hired and bound laborers who live with you, your cattle, and the beasts of the field. Ownership of land is basically put on hold for that year.
Focusing on this ceasing of economic activity, one commentator sees the shemitah as promoting union and peace. All strife comes from the attitude of “what’s mine is mine.” The shemitah year says, effectively, nothing really belongs to any of us. Every human being is equal.
Isaac Arama, who I mentioned earlier, points to an additional lesson. He says that “the suspension of work in every seventh year causes us to realize that our mission on earth is not to be slaves to the soil but a much higher and nobler one. Work should only serve the purpose of providing food and other needs, while our task is to attain the supreme end; the purpose of giving this land to this people was not to be brought into the land in order to be enslaved by it, and addicted to tilling it and gather in the crops and enrich themselves… Their purpose is to accomplish themselves and seek perfection, according to the will of their Creator, while satisfying the needs of their sustenance.”
In other words, properly observing the shemitah will enable us to reach a healthy balance between our pursuit of osher with an ayin and osher with an aleph, between wealth and happiness.
But the laws of shemitah have very little practical significance to us today. First of all, they do not apply to land outside of Israel. Second, Jewish communities throughout the millenia were always trying to find ways to circumvent the restrictions of shemitah. If it is to pay taxes to the Romans, it is ok to cultivate some crops. If you sell the land to a non-Jew, that person can work the land and sell the produce back to you. And many other creative ways to not have to stop economic activity for a year. The human drive to get more stuff is just too powerful.
That does not mean, however, that we should ignore what the laws of shemitah would ask of us.
Isaac Arama would have us ask ourselves, “Is my mission on earth to be a slave acquiring more material wealth, or is my mission a higher and nobler one? Am I working to provide just enough for myself and loved ones to survive and thrive, or have I gone beyond that” “How am I living a fulfilled life?” “Will the direction in which my life is going lead to true happiness?”
Shabbat and Shemitah tell us that, to get at what truly matters, we have to take a break from material pursuits. Let’s ask ourselves: Am I taking breaks? Am I turning off my cell phone? Am I finding time to study Torah? Am I giving extended amounts of uninterrupted attention to the people I love?
In short, am I pursuing a life that places equal value on both osher and osher?
*1*Hopkins 1985: 201
*2*Kli Yakar, Deut. 31:12
Preach-In on Global Warming – Yitro 5772
This morning, we read about the paradigmatic human encounter with God.
The Israelites have come out of Egypt, crossed through the Sea of Reeds, and arrived, finally, at the base of Mount Sinai. This is the moment they have been waiting for. The moment when God will come down on to the mountain and be revealed before the collected nation. The people spend three days getting themselves physically, and spiritually ready. God declares to Moses “All the earth is mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5-6)
For the Jewish people, this is the moment when God, to whom the entire earth belongs, is encountered in the most complete sense possible. And that encounter leaves us with the challenge and opportunity to be holy.
The encounter with God is, by definition, a mystical experience, and words cannot fully convey mystical experiences. The Torah describes thunder, a dense cloud, and lightning. The mountain is covered in smoke. The earth trembles. The sound of the shofar pierces the air.
The metaphor is of a volcano, a thunderstorm, and an earthquake all rolled up into one. But we are not to understand this as a weather or geological phenomenon. The encounter with God simply overwhelms the senses. All of that holiness is too much to handle. And so the people turn to Moses, their leader, and ask him to go talk to God, and that they will do whatever he says. This is the role of the prophet. To hear and interpret the message within the God encounter.
We read of another Prophet’s mystical experience in the Haftarah. The Prophet Isaiah is in the Temple courts when he receives an ecstatic vision of the heavenly court. He does not indicate that he has seen God directly, but rather the hem of God’s royal robes filling the throne room. Later on, he will describe smoke. It is likely that they are one and the same. The incense from the earthly Temple, God’s robes, smoke, are all ways of describing the glory of God. In Hebrew, kavod.
Indeed, Isaiah describes a vision of angels, who are calling out to one another kadosh kadosh kadosh, adonai tz’va-ot, “Holy, holy, holy. The Lord of Hosts…” And then they say m’lo khol ha-aretz k’vodo. While this phrase has traditionally been translated as “the whole world is filled with with God’s glory,” the real meaning is slightly different. m’lo chol ha-aretz k’vodo: “the fullness of the earth is God’s glory.”
We cannot see God directly, but what we can see is God’s kavod, God’s glory. It is the kavod that the Israelites encounter at Mt. Sinai, described as smoke, fire, lightning, and the sound of the shofar. It is the kavod that the Prophet Isaiah encounters in the Temple, described as the hem of God’s royal robes, and as smoke.
So where do we go to encounter God’s Presence? How do we meet the challenge of being a holy people? Isaiah tells us. God’s kavod, the Divine glory, is to be found in the fullness of the world.
Our ability to encounter that kavod must begin with a sense of wonder. Of recognizing the miracles that abound all around us. The miracle in a sunrise, in rainfall at a time when it is needed, in migrating birds passing through our lives twice a year. To see these miracles, to approach the world with wonder, requires of us a humility that we, as a human species, lack.
God announced, before coming down on to Mount Sinai, ki li kol-ha-aretz, “for all the earth is mine.” That may be true. But our twenty-first century lifestyle, with all of our technology and progress, inhibits us from being able to acknowledge it.
This is not just a spiritual problem. It is also an environmental problem.
We have paved over our world,. We spend most of our days in hermetically-sealed, climate-controlled buildings. Most of our food is produced by people we will never meet in fields we will never walk on.
This Shabbat, I am joining hundreds of other clergy from all faiths in a “Preach-in for global warming.” Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other faiths, are speaking about the religious imperative to change the way that we interact with the planet.
We have all heard the reports. Our use of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, has created a layer of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that traps heat in. At the rate we are going, average global temperatures are expected to rise significantly over the next century. We have seen a lot of weird weather patters over the past decade. That will continue and get worse, with disastrous effects for the earth’s inhabitants. Coastal areas are at great risk from the expected rise of sea levels. There will be effects on health and disease, as well as availability and access to drinking water.
These changes will of course effect all of us, but the ones who will suffer the worst consequences are invariably the poor. Not to mention the plant and animal species that will become extinct due to our mismanagement of the planet.
If we expand the conversation beyond just global warming, we find that there are so many other ways in which human exploitation of the earth’s bounty causes harm. We don’t manage our water resources properly. Our industry produces pollution. Human expansion causes deforestation and the destruction of ecosystems.
So there are some very real, self-serving reasons for humanity to change the way we relate to the earth.
If we know all of this, that mismanagement of our resources harms our world, it should seem like an obvious thing to change our behavior. So why is change so difficult?
This is where the religions of the world have an important role to play. In our Jewish tradition, we read in the Torah that Adam and Eve are placed in the Garden of Eden and instructed, with regard to the plants, and the animals, that our rule is v’kivshu-ha. “You shall dominate it.” Humanity has taken that to heart. We dominate the world and its resources – for ourselves. We have an anthropocentric relationship to the universe. Even though we intellectually know that we are just a speck, our behavior suggests otherwise – that we are the most important beings in the universe. We need to fundamentally change how we understand our role in the world. Not as dominators, but as caretakers.
But haven’t we done a lot, you might ask? There are solar panels on the roof of this building. Some of us have bought fuel efficient cars. We have swapped out our light bulbs. Those are important things to do.
But none of those things, even if we all did them, will make the difference that is needed. What is needed is a transformation of how we live. And the well-intentioned changes that most of us have made have enabled us to go on living the same way we have always been living.
How many of us have switched over to carpooling, or stopped driving altogether to instead use public transportation? At the moment, we have received about 25% of the average rainfall that we should be getting. Has anybody here started taking shorter showers, or ripped out their lawn so as to use less water?
We are generally willing, and even eager, to make small changes in our lives, but the big things that will be needed will come at a cost. If we really took this seriously, we would reduce our meat consumption, put on a sweater instead of turning on the heat, take fewer trips by car, and especially by plane. We would change where we live and shift to higher density living. We would have a whole let less stuff. And we would change the laws regulating how our energy is generated and consumed. Life would look very different.
In this morning’s parshah, we read the Ten Commandments. Number five lists the mitzvah of honoring our parents. Our tradition teaches that, because we are brought into the world by our mother, our father, and God, we therefore owe them honor and reverence.
I once had a teacher, Rabbi Ira Stone, who surprised us when he said that it is the other way around. We never asked to be born. Every one of us was brought into the world through no action or decision on our part whatsoever. What does that mean? It means that it is our parents who owe us. Or, speaking now as a parent, it is I who owes my kids. I am accountable to them because I helped bring them into the world.
God-willing, my kids will one day have kids of their own, and then they will know what it feels like to be responsible for them too.
I fear that, as parents, we are not living up to our obligations to our kids and grandkids when it comes to the world that we are turning over to them. But that can change. We can change that.
Addressing our environmental challenges in a serious way would enable us to earn our kids’ respect, and would lead us to be more spiritually aware. We would approach the world with a sense of wonder. By enabling ourselves to truly experience the fullness of the world, we might even merit God’s Presence. May we have the strength to do so.
Income Inequality – Behar 5771
As you know, economists have officially declared the recession over. That may be true on paper, but there are still millions who have lost their jobs, and their homes, and are struggling to get by. Despite the immensity of the recession, it has not impacted everyone the same. Some have come through just fine, and even prospered. One of the recent critiques we have heard is that the national unemployment rate is still well over 8 percent while some of the largest American corporations are making record profits and sitting on billions of dollars. There are vast differences between the economic experiences of Americans. I don’t think there is much disagreement that there is something broken in the socio-economics of this country. There is a lot of disagreement about what is broken and how to fix it.
As a Diaspora people, Jews have lived in many different societies. But wherever we have lived, we have taken our Torah, and our teachings with us, and we have applied their lessons to the situations we face. This morning’s Torah portion has a lot to say to us about the relationship between the rich and the poor in society.
Most of Parshat Behar, is a presentation of the laws of land ownership in ancient Israel. It describes an economic system that is vastly different from what we have today. It is agriculturally based. There is no money. And land is apportioned to tribes, clans, and families. As in some other societies in the Ancient World, land could not really be sold. Great value was placed on keeping ancestral land within the family. The Torah adds an innovative, and powerful moral concept with far-reaching implications. God instructs the people, “But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.” (Lev. 25:23)
The Israelites get this reminder every seven years, when they observe shemitah, and let the land lie fallow. Every fifty years, they observe the yovel, the Jubilee. In that year, all land reverts back to its original owner. Any Israelite who had to indenture himself into servitude regains his freedom, and his land. All debts are cancelled.
This economic model, if fully implemented, would have some pretty significant effects. Families would not fall into multi-generational poverty, since there would effectively be an economic reset every fifty years.
Also, it would be impossible for anyone to accumulate huge amounts of property, since any land or debt that a successful business person acquired would revert on the Jubilee year. There is not even such a thing as selling land, just leasing it for a period of time up until the fiftieth year.
The result would be a flattening of economic disparities. You can imagine that the gap between the richest and the poorest in society would never get that huge if everything reset itself every half century.
What I especially appreciate about the system that the Torah dscribes is that it is not a pie in the sky utopia. It does not say that everyone will be equal. This is not “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” This system understands that some people are going to be wealthier, better educated, shrewder, and luckier, than others.
Remember, the underlying moral value is that the land ultimately is owned by God, and not us. While prosperity is important, there are values that are more important to pursue than the accumulation of wealth.
In his commentary on the Book of Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom describes these laws as trying to stop the loss of land by debtors to the rich, as well as reduce “the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.” The Biblical Prophets condemned the mistreatment of the poor in their particular prophetic style. They harangued a society for ignoring the light of the poor, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan. Here in the Book of Leviticus, Israel’s priests are trying to fix the immorality of economic inequality, not through moral pronouncements, but through law.
Nevertheless, the historical evidence suggests that the Jubilee year as presented in the Torah was never actually practiced. What are we to make of its appearance here? It is a presentation of values. An ancient reader would see in this theoretical economic system a critique of what was probably a less just society in which those with less money, and less power, did not have many opportunities. A society in which bankruptcy risked dooming a family to poverty for generations.
We seem to have some of the same issues today.
As you no doubt are aware, the last several decades have seen a significant rise in income inequality around the world.
Of all developed countries, the income gap between the rich and the poor is greatest in the United States. In 2008, the top earning 20 percent of Americans, who earn at least $100,000 per year, received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the country The bottom 20 percent received just 3.4 percent of all income. The relative gap is the widest that it has been since the U.S. Census Bureau started collecting data in 1968.
We are not going to get into what causes income disparities, or how to reduce them. But I do want to talk about the effects.
There has been a lot of study over the last few decades about the impact that large gaps between the rich and the poor has on society.
Robert Putnam, the professor of political science at Harvard University, conducted a study on the relationship between social capital, or the connections between members of a society, and economic inequality. He found that throughout the twentieth century, social connectedness and civic engagement moved “in tandem” with economic equality. The flatter the gap between the rich and the poor, the more society was interconnected. The high point in social capital, according to Putnam, occurred during the 1950’s and 1960’s, which was also the most economically egalitarian period in the twentieth century. “Conversely,” he writes, “the last third of the twentieth century was a time of growing inequality and eroding social capital… The timing of the two trends is striking: somewhere around 1965-70 America reversed course and started becoming both less just economically and less well connected socially and politically.”
In other words, when the rich-poor gap is smaller, society functions better. There are more interactions between people. Communities are tighter-knit. Individuals are more engaged politically, meaning that they are more involved in shaping the course of society.
There are many other social factors that have been also statistically correlated to income inequality. To the extant that the income gap is reduced, societies in the developed world experience lower homicide rates, fewer mental health problems and less teen-age pregnancy. But the gap is expanding.
It was not always like this. In 1831, in his book Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville talked about how wonderful the economic equality was that he witnessed. He writes:
Among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me with greater force than the equality of conditions. I easily perceived the enormous influence that this primary fact exercises on the workings of society. It gives a particular direction to the public mind, a particular turn to the laws, new maxims to those who govern, and particular habits to the governed… It creates opinions, gives rise to sentiments, inspires customs, and modifies everything it does not produce… I kept finding that fact before me again and again as a central point to which all of my observations were leading.
De Tocqueville was describing an engaged, inspired population. I don’t think de Tocqueville would be able to make those comment today.
Today, with the widest gap between the wealthy and the poor this country has seen since the 1920’s, it seems that there is a tremendous despair among individuals about our ability to affect society. With corporations now defined as people, and large PACs with unknown sources of funding able to influence politics with huge amounts of money, that despair seems justified.
The point I want to make this morning is that our Jewish tradition has always understood large gaps between the rich and the poor to be highly problematic. Such disparities are harmful to a cohesive society, and are antithetical to the Jewish notion of justice. To be clear, our tradition encourages us to be involved in the material world around us. We pray for God to bless us with prosperity. Wealth and prosperity are things to pursue. But not as ends in and of themselves. Only as means to do the more important work of serving God by creating a just world.
It is said that you can always cherry pick a text that will support your position. I don’t think that can be said about this issue. I have never heard or read any Jewish thinker, speaking from within the tradition, defend the idea that the rich should be free to acquire as much as they can without regard to the consequences on the rest of society. As Jews, we have a moral and a legal obligation to create opportunities for the people at the bottom to succeed. We can argue about strategy – raise taxes, lower taxes, expand social services, cut medicaid – but from a Jewish perspective, something has to be done about income inequality.
The Sin of “Reply to All” – Kedoshim 5771
I want to share with you the most dangerous word in the world today. A word that can bring down governments. A word that can destroy reputations. A word that can kill. The word is―
Forward
You know what I am talking about. An email conversation with sensitive information gets forwarded on to someone new, with the entire history of previous conversations included at the bottom. Perhaps you have received one of those emails.
Maybe you have even forwarded along a conversation, accidentally I am sure, that spread embarrassing or harmful details about another person.
I have, and the feeling is terrible. Because once we hit send, there is no taking it back. Forever. It is in the cloud, possibly to resurface at any time.
The ability to share information is a double edged sword. As we speak, it is being used to enable people to rise up to demand freedom from authoritarian rulers. The release of the Wikileaks documents are another example. Both made possible by “Forward.”
But the sharing of information has an impact on a personal level as well. Sometimes with deadly results.
We saw this recently with the tragic death of Rutgers freshman student Tyler Clementi, who took his life after being the victim of cyberbullying.
While the technology that enabled all of these events is cutting edge, the danger that the digital cloud poses is ancient.
It is a danger that is the most neglected mitzvah in all of Judaism. We read about it in this morning’s parshah.
לֹא־תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ
Do not deal basely with your countrymen… (Lev. 19:16)
Although this is a difficult verse to understand, our tradition has interpreted “do not deal basely with your countrymen” to be a reference to gossip. Although I can’t give you statistics to back this up, I would argue that the prohibition against lashon hara, literally “an evil tongue,” is the most frequently broken commandment in all of Judaism, even before the days of the internet.
While the Torah’s reference to gossip is somewhat unclear, our tradition has filled in the gaps extensively.
One ancient teaching states that a gossiper can stand in Rome and cause a death in Syria.*1* The tragedy of Tyler Clementi is a case in point.
Gossip is also compared to an arrow. In fact, I’d like to share several arrow metaphors.
Why is gossip like an arrow, as opposed to other weapons? Because other weapons can only slay those who are near them, whereas an arrow can kill from a distance.*2*
Another arrow metaphor: If a man takes a sword in hand to slay his fellow, who then pleads with him and begs for mercy, the would-be slayer can change his mind and return the sword to its sheath. But once the would-be slayer has shot an arrow, it cannot be brought back even if he wants to.*3*
Metaphor number three. The thirteenth century Rabbi Jonah Gerondi said: “One who draws the bow often sends his arrow into a person without the latter’s knowing who hit him.”*4*
These three metaphors reveal three problems with gossip.
1. It can harm from great distances.
2. It cannot be retracted.
3. It is often anonymous, making it impossible for the victim to confront its source.
So much has been written about gossip over the millenia, I cannot begin to cover the subject this morning. I would like to discuss a new aspect of lashon hara that the Sages of our tradition could never have imagined. A development that has taken this occasionally deadly scourge and exponentially multiplied its frequency and its potential to harm.
I am talking about lashon hara in the digital age.
The metaphor that the Torah uses for gossip, לֹא־תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ, literally means, “do not act as a merchant for your own kinsmen.” It imagines that the marketplace is where gossip is passed along, the merchant being the one who is most privy to secret dealings and gossip. And so, the traditional understanding of where gossip happens places it in the center of town, or in people’s kitchens, or perhaps even in shul, at the kiddush lunch after services, God forbid.
When the Talmud warns that gossip uttered in Rome can kill in Syria, it imagines transmission by caravan, over a period of months or years.
Now, the transmission of gossip can be measured in fractions of seconds.
Our lives are increasingly played out not in one another’s physical presence, but digitally. First email, now Facebook and Twitter. For many, social interaction takes place somewhere in the cloud.
The three arrow metaphors about gossip that I mentioned earlier are so true of the internet as well.
We are connected over great distances. Once an email is sent, or a tweet posted, or a status updated, it cannot be taken back. And finally, the internet makes it so easy to spread information anonymously.
But there is another aspect of the digital lashon hara that makes it even harder for us to resist. When we are having a face to face conversation with a real person, we hear voice inflections and see facial and body expressions that make it a full communication. The presence of the other person forces us to watch what we say, at least a little bit. We serve as checks on one another’s behavior. How is what I say or do going to be received by the person right in front of me?
But when we are sitting in front of a screen, or texting below the table in class or at a meeting – not that anyone here does that – our physical interaction is with a two dimensional piece of glass. The human connection is gone.
That is why people will write things in emails that they would never say in person. One can be much less inhibited online. There are, of course, positive aspects to this. The internet opens up possibilities of expression for people who might not otherwise have a voice. But basic rules of decent behavior are so much easier to ignore when there is no physical person in front of us. Nevertheless, we must not ignore them.
We are currently in the period of the omer. The seven weeks of counting that begins on the second day of Passover and lasts until the day before Shavuot. Today is the eleventh day. I have taken it upon myself this year to try to reduce the amout of lashon hara that I engage in. I have not managed to eradicate all gossip from my life. Cold turkey is always tough. But I think I have been controlling my tongue a bit better. I am at least more aware of the numerous moments of gossip that I encounter every day, both as speaker, listener, and reader.
May I suggest that we all spend the remaining thirty eight days of the Omer focusing on just this one aspect of digital lashon hara.
Here is a way that I think may help. One of the Sages of the Talmud, Rabbi Yossi taught: “I never made a statement for which I would have to turn around and check whether the person about whom I was speaking was present.”*5*
Let’s bring Rabbi Yossi into the age of Facebook and Twitter. Before sending an email, Tweet, or status update that mentions someone who is not among the recipients, ask the following question: How would I feel if that person read this message in my presence? Forget about wondering how the other person would feel. How would I feel?
If you think you might feel at all uncomfortable if the other person read it, that is a pretty good indication that the message is within the realm of lashon hara.
By the way, this is also a good rule to follow if the person about whom you are writing is among the recipients. If you would not want the other person to read the message with you in the same room, it might be better to keep it to yourself, or pick up the phone instead.
At the end of the Amidah, a prayer which is traditionally recited at least three times a day, there is a meditation that originates in the Talmud. It begins
אֱלֹהַי, נְצוֹר לְשׁוֹנִי מֵרָע. וּשְׂפָתַי מִדַּבֵּר מִרְמָה.
“My Lord, prevent my tongue from evil. And my lips from speaking deceit.”
It is a prayer that acknowledges that we all struggle with gossip, and that we need God’s help to stop it.
I think it may be time to modify the prayer. “Prevent my tongue from evil” doesn’t quite capture what is needed in the era of digital lashon hara. Perhaps we ought to say the following instead:
אֱלֹהַי, נְצוֹר אֶצְבְּעוֹתַי מֵרָע, וְאַגוֹדְלַי מְהַקְלִיד מִרְמָה.
“My Lord, prevent my fingers from evil, and my thumbs from typing deceit.”
*1*PT Peah 1:1
*2*ibid.
*3*Midrash Tehillim 120:4
*4*Gates of Repentance, part 3, paragraph 207
*5*BT Arachin 15b
I’m Building a Cathedral – Vayakhel 5771
There once was a traveler who journeyed all over the globe in search of wisdom and enlightenment. In the midst of one French village, he came upon a great deal of noise, dust, and commotion. He could see that a great building project was underway.
He approached the nearest laborer and asked, “Excuse me, I’m not from this village. May I ask what you are doing?” The laborer replied curtly, “Can’t you see? I’m a stonemason. I’m making bricks.”
The traveler approached a second laborer and asked the same question. He replied, “Can’t you see? I’m a woodcarver. I’m carving benches.”
He next went to a third laborer and repeated his question. “I’m a glassmaker. I am putting together panes of glass to make a window.”
The traveler then approached an old lady in tattered clothing who was sweeping up shards of stone, woodchips, and broken glass. He asked her, somewhat hesitantly, “What are you doing?” With a broad smile and a gleam in her eye, the woman stopped her sweeping, gazed up, and proudly said: “Can’t you see? I’m building a cathedral for God.”
This story teaches that even though our individual actions may seem to be inconsequential, as simple perhaps as sweeping up the floor, our involvement in a bigger story, and a bigger purpose, has the potential to make those actions meaningful. The old lady’s ability to see that bigger story is what makes it possible for her to take pride in her involvement in building a cathedral.
There is a similar lesson to be found in the building of the mishkan, the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle, once it is inaugurated, serves several functions. It is where Moses goes to communicate with God. It is where God causes the Divine Presence to dwell in the sight of the Israelites. And it is also the place where Aaron the High Priest and his sons performed the sacrificial rituals on behalf of the nation.
We might be tempted to look back at the sacrificial system and see signs of elitism. That a priestly class, passed down from father to son, alone was permitted to perform the holy functions. And was entitled to receive certain benefits as well.
But there are ways in which every Israelite is involved in the Tabernacle and the priestly service. First of all, the materials for building everything are donated by the people. But not in the way that we might expect for a public works project like this one. There is no bond issued, or temporary sales tax increase. As we read this morning in Parshat Vayakhel, Moses puts the call out for “everyone whose heart so moves him” (Ex. 35:5) to bring gold, silver, precious metals, acacia wood, skins, spices, and all of the other materials that make up the mishkan.
Making it voluntary allows every member of the nation to put his or her heart into the Tabernacle. I can just imagine an Israelite walking by the finished product and thinking proudly “I donated the wool that is in those curtains.” Or, “it was my acacia wood that helped make the poles that hold up the tent.”
To build the mishkan, Moses brings in everyone with special skills, men and women. The parshah describes them as people who are chakham lev asher natan adonai chokhmah b’libo – wise of heart, whom God has endowed with skill.
These workers knew, as they were weaving cloth, hammering out gold, and sanding tent poles, that without their efforts, the mishkan could not be built, the Priests could not be ordained. Without them, the Tabernacle would not serve its purpose. I wonder, if a traveller had asked them what they were doing, how they would have answered. Perhaps someone would have said, “I am weaving this thread into cloth,” or “I am placing this precious stone in its setting.” But then again, he might have said “I am building a house for God to dwell among us.”
And although the Torah does not mention it, I bet there was an old lady out there in the wilderness whose job was to clean up the bits of cloth, and dust, and spilled paint. I bet she was enormously honored and proud to be involved in such a holy project.
The Tabernacle for our ancestors in the wilderness, just like the Cathedral for the French villagers, was God’s place on earth. It was where the people looked for hope and inspiration. To build such a place, it was necessary for the people that it served to feel involved in it. To feel that it represented them, that they had a stake in its building, and thus a stake in the mission that it was built to serve.
Let’s come back to the idea of what the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, represented. It was God’s place on earth, where the heavens and earth came together. It was the locus point where God’s immanent and transcendent nature came together. But there is another notion as well that states that the entire world is God’s place. A few weeks ago, I asked our religious school students about the meaning of the mem line in the Ashrei:
מַלְכוּתְךָ מַלְכוּת כָּל עוֹלָמִים, וּמֶמְשַׁלְתְּךָ בְּכָל דֹר וָדֹר:
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your reign is for all generations.
“Where is God’s kingdom?” I asked. To which a fourth grader replied, “It’s all around us.”
To recognize this idea, that the entire world is God’s kingdom and is filled with the Divine Presence, is one of the major goals of Jewish prayer. It is a theme that can be found throughout the siddur, not just in the Ashrei. It is the reason why we recite blessings before eating food. It’s why we wear kippot. As Jews, we are constantly reminded that there is a vision of what the world ought to be like. It is a vision that we share with each other, with generations of Jews who have come before us, and with God. The Torah is our guide to making that vision a reality.
And so, each day when we set out on our tasks, we too are laborers building a cathedral to house the Divine Presence. Our goal is to make sure that the cathedral is one that is worthy of God. So what are the tasks that must be done to build a suitable dwelling-place?
We call them mitzvot. And they encompass every aspect of our lives. They tell us that we have a duty to build a just society, and how to do so. They tell us to conduct our business honestly, to support others who are experiencing difficulties, to live our lives in communities, to respect the members of our families, to make time sacred through by observing Shabbat and holidays. These are the tasks that we perform, as Jews, that contribute to preparing a world in which the shechinah can reside.
Each contribution to the building of the Tabernacle was valued. So too is each task that we perform, each mitzvah.
But doesn’t that seem a bit idealistic?
Life is busy. We rush, and rarely seem to have the time to pause and reflect. We live in a self-oriented world, where success and achievement is measured by an individual’s accomplishment, rather than a group’s. We tend not to take pride in other people’s achievements. We tend to not feel that our individual actions matter to the world. Modern society does not especially value minuscule contributions. The person who sweeps up the mess is replaceable.
A midrash teaches that the artisans who built the mishkan themselves learned their skills from no human teacher. The knowledge of their craft was planted in their hearts directly from God. If that was the case, then even the smallest little contribution would have been abundantly significant.
Is there anything in our lives that is so inspiring as building the mishkan? Do we feel that God is instilling in us a ruach chochmah, a spirit of wisdom, to engage in a holy task? What if we were so excited by an idea that we could see our involvement in its pursuit, even if it seemed insignificant, as profoundly meaningful?
When we go to work, do we think to ourselves, “I am making the world better”? When we schlep our kids to school, do we pause to consider, “I am helping make this child into a moral, responsible human being”? When we smile genuinely to another person, do we think “I could be lifting this person’s entire day”? This person, in whom God’s image resides.
Can we relate to our work as being an integral part of building a world that is worthy of God? Whether as a parent, or an engineer, or a teacher, or a repairperson, or especially the person who sweeps up the pieces that the rest of us leave behind. If we could maintain a consciousness that we are part of that Eternal building project, perhaps it might change not only how we view our work, but the kind of work that we do.