I love you, but I hate the way you think – Chayei Sarah 5773

On the morning of Dec. 30, 1994, John Salvi walked into the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts and opened fire with a rifle.  He seriously wounded three people and killed the receptionist, Shannon Lowney, as she spoke on the phone.  He then ran to his car and drove two miles down Beacon Street to Preterm Health Services, where he began shooting again, injuring two and killing receptionist Lee Ann Nichols.

Several months later, a group of six leaders, three each from the pro-choice and pro-life movements, started meeting in secret with each other. At first, they were nervous about the project.  One of the pro-life participants was worried that if word got out that he was in dialogue with pro-choice leaders, it could generate ”a scandal if people thought [he] was treating abortion merely as a matter of opinion on which reasonable people could differ.”  One of the pro-choice leaders ”wondered if the talks would divert [her] energies from coordinating [her] organization’s response to the shootings and from assisting in the healing of [her] employees and their families.”

The two facilitators were worried that the “‘talks might do more harm than good.”

But, they stuck with it.  There were many challenges in their conversations, including over basic things like terminology.  Prochoice members would become inflamed when referred to as ”murderers” or when abortions were likened to the Holocaust or to ”genocide.”  Prolife participants became incensed by dehumanizing phrases such as ”products of conception” and ”termination of pregnancy” that obscured their belief that abortion was killing.

Nevertheless, they grew close to one another.  They learned to distinguish between the way that an opponent thought, and the person sitting across the room.  They learned to have a conversation in which they were not trying to change the other person’s mind.

They were forced to dig deep to learn to define exactly what they believed and where those beliefs came from, and to admit those things about which they still experienced uncertainty.

The dialogue did not bring them closer together politically.  It revealed deep differences between their respective positions.

But, the growing sensitivity to one another started to have an impact on the public statements that they were making, in which the media noticed a decrease in inflammatory rhetoric.  And that resulted in reaching people whom they never would have reached before.

Five and a half years later, on January 28, 2001, after the group had spent more than 150 hours together, they co-authored an article that appeared in the Boston Globe in which they described their experiences.  (“Talking with the Enemy,” published in The Boston Globe, Sunday, 28 January 2001, Focus section.)  They concluded the article by explaining why they had chosen to continue to meet together for all these years.  They felt that they had been stretched spiritually and intellectually, that they had become wiser and more effective leaders, having become more knowledgeable about their opponents.  They learned to not be overreactive and to not disparage the other side.  This is how they concluded the article:

Since that first fear-filled meeting, we have experienced a paradox.  While learning to treat each other with dignity and respect, we have all become firmer in our views about abortion.

In this world of polarizing conflicts, we have glimpsed a new possibility: a way in which people can disagree frankly and passionately, become clearer in heart and mind about their activism, and, at the same time, contribute to a more civil and compassionate society.

Wouldn’t that be nice?  If we could have conversations about deeply polarizing issues, in which those conversations help us clarify for ourselves what we believe, while at the same time bringing us closer to those who think differently.

Which brings us to the recent election.  Thank God it is over.  Regardless of who you were rooting for, I think we can all agree that this election cycle has been awful, and it is a relief now that it is over.

The irony is, of course, that after all of the money that has been spent, we are basically where we were before.  Barack Obama is still President.  The Democrats still control the Senate, and the Republicans still control the House.

The political rhetoric in our country is so divisive, so polarizing.

Why is it like that?  Why can’t people with different views about the direction our country should be moving speak to and about each other with respect?  Especially when we consider that most people in America are probably closer to the center.  There is something about our political system, or about the media, that seems to drive people to the extremes, and leads to disparaging, and even dehumanizing, anyone who thinks differently.

The most recent episode of the NPR radio program This American Life dealt with this issue.  One segment was all about people who ended friendships because of political differences.  And just to be clear, people on both the right and the left were depicted.  Why do we allow ourselves to make our opinions so personal.

The truth is, the fault is not with our politics, or with the media.  It is with our brains.  This is simply how humans behave.  That, combined with the instant communication possibilities that our technology now offers, has increased the polarization in society.

People who are like-minded tend to talk only to each other, and rarely to people with opposing viewpoints.

Why is it so hard to talk about our differences?

Our brains associate what we think with who we are.  My thoughts are me.  So when I hear someone say something that challenges what I think, my brain takes it as a challenge to my identity.

My brain perceives it as a threat and releases hormones that cause me to misread or misunderstand the nature of the attack.  This leads us to respond in one of three ways:  Flight, fight, or freeze.

I might run away from the person who is expressing a different opinion.  Shelter myself from challenging ways of thinking.  By avoiding exposure to other viewpoints, my identity is secure.

The second response, fight, causes me to respond to the threat by arguing back.  And often, by escalating the argument.  That is why political disagreements often turn into accusations and name calling.

The third response is to freeze like a deer in the headlights.  To just shut down, and not engage.

Human beings are hard-wired to mirror one another’s behavior.  That is why when we experience attack and defense, we tend to respond in kind.  This creates a feedback loop, as feelings of danger and threat escalate.  Pretty soon, we have lost the ability to have intelligent conversations.

Think for a moment about how you view those who hold different values than you, or about how others perceive you.

It does not matter what the issue is, or which side of it you are on.  Take abortion, or same sex marriage, taxes, the proper role of government.

Now, in your mind, complete the following sentence:  As a ____, others view me as ______.

As someone who is pro-choice, others view me as supporting murder.

Now do the opposite.  As a ______, I view others as ______.

As someone who is pro-choice, I view others as ________.  someone who hates women, a religious fundamentalist…

We tend to speak in generalities of the other side, leading us to characterize them as the enemy, or evil, or unintelligent, or uneducated.  If the other person does not think the way I do, there must be something wrong with him or her.  We recognize the crassness of the other side before we recognize it on our own.  We tend to see ourselves as open-minded, and the other as closed.

So we end up dividing into camps of the like-minded.  Curiosity, openness, and goodwill towards the other are discouraged.  Extreme positions are enhanced.

Our political rhetoric has gone through the feedback loop and descended to name-calling.  President Obama is a socialist.  Republicans hate women.

As soon as an issue gets a slogan that portrays a side, real dialogue becomes very difficult.  Nuanced positions cannot be expressed in binary labels like pro-choice and pro-life.  It is scary to give in anything from your own position when involved in a binary political fight.  We have to get away from the labels.

We need to find a way to have real dialogue with each other.  Dialogue that helps us understand other positions better, and through that openness, our own positions better.  Our nation needs it.  I hope our newly elected leaders can do this, although I have my doubts.

But it is not just in the political arena that respectful dialogue is needed.

It is needed in the Jewish community as well.  It is needed in our shul.  Members have shared with me that they have felt uncomfortable expressing their views publicly because of what they perceive as negative reactions from other members of the community.

It is possible to break the feedback loop.

At the end of this morning’s Parshah, Abraham dies, as the Torah describes, “in a good old age, an old man, and full of years…”  The Torah then tells us that “Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah.”  Noticing that Isaac’s name is mentioned before his older brother’s, Rashi comments that “Ishmael repented and placed Isaac before himself.  This act of reconciliation constitutes the ‘good old age’ that is attributed to Abraham.”

These half-brothers certainly had their differences.  We have no record in the Torah of them interacting with each other for decades.  They clearly have different personalities, and have chosen different paths in life.  Yet, Ishmael found a way to set aside those differences and see the humanity in Isaac.  According to Rashi, this occurred prior to Abraham’s death, for the knowledge of his sons’ reconciliation enabled him to die contented, in “good, old age.”

We can only imagine how the reunion might have gone.  But for two brothers who were so different, it must have involved learning to listen to each other, and recognize the humanity in the other, despite the differences.

Having a dialogue with the other needs rules.

There are groups out there that specialize in mediating difficult, polarizing issues.  Issues like abortion, same sex marriage, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  And they have sophisticated models for leading groups of people with differing viewpoints through a productive dialogue.  I am not going to go into a detailed analysis.  Instead, I would like to suggest an approach that we might take, as individuals, the next time we are in a conversation about a polarizing topic, perhaps during kiddush today.

The first thing we have to be clear about is the purpose of the dialogue.  What do I hope to accomplish when I have a discussion with someone who disagrees with me about health care, for example?

My goal cannot be to win the argument, or convince the other person that my way is correct.  If I go into a conversation thinking that I am going to change the other person’s mind, I will fail.

The goal, for this and any other issue, is simply to understand the other person.  And that means that I have to listen, and listen closely.

And then, when it is my turn to talk, there are a couple of self-reflective questions that will be very helpful:

Why do I care so passionately about this issue?  What in my own experience has led me to this passion?

And then, equally important, is to find those areas where I am uncertain.  What is it in my own position that troubles me?  What is it in the other’s position that I find attractive?

These are the kinds of questions that the six pro-choice and pro-life leaders in Boston asked themselves.  Those are the kinds of questions we ought to ask ourselves as well.

After a Christian group had gone through a mediated dialogue over some issue that was controversial for their community, one of the participants described how he felt after it was over.  His opinion was not changed.  If anything, he felt even stronger about his position than he had beforehand.  But his feelings about his opponents had made a 180 degree shift.  This is what he said:  “I love you, but I hate the way you think.”

May we find the courage to say the same.

Ki Tov Hu – Shemot 5773

When my sister in law had her first child, she called up my wife and asked her, “Isn’t my baby the most beautiful baby you have ever seen?”

To which my wife responded, “No. My baby is the most beautiful baby ever.”

Of course, they are both right. To every mother, her baby is the most beautiful, and she would do anything for that child.

This is a phenomenon that goes all the way back to the beginning of the book of Exodus. The Israelites are enslaved in Egypt. Pharaoh and the Egyptians have been oppressing them. After trying, unsuccessfully, to compel the midwives to murder any male child born to an Israelite, Pharaoh issues a more specific decree: all Israelite boys are to be thrown into the Nile.

Then, in chapter two, the camera zooms in from the wide angle lens to focus in on one particular baby boy: “A certain man of the house of Levi went and married a Levite woman. The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw how beautiful he was, she hid him for three months.”

And so begins the story of Moses. A couple of problems with our text.

First, as illustrated by the interaction between my wife and sister in law, there is nothing extraordinary about a mother looking at her newborn baby boy and noticing how beautiful he is.

Second, there is also nothing unusual about a mother trying to defy a horrific decree by keeping her son in hiding.

As Nachmanides says: “All women love their children, beautiful or not, and they would all hide them to the best of their ability; there is no need to say that he was beautiful to explain why she hid him.”*1*

The universality of a mother and father’s love of her or his child is a given, across all time and culture. So why would the Torah take the time to mention something so obvious?

Naturally, there are a number of commentaries from our tradition that give us additional insight into Moses’ birth. The Torah states, Vatere oto ki tov hu – “When she saw how tov he was…”*2* What does tov mean in this context? The Talmud offers five explanations*3*:

“Rabbi Meir says: His name was Tov” Remember that he does not receive the name Moshe until the Egyptian daughter of Pharaoh rescues him from the Nile River. Tov was his birth name.

“Rabbi Judah says: His name was Tuviah” – This answer is similar to the first one, with two additional letters, yud, heh. These are letters from the name of God. It is common for biblical names to incorporate the Divine name.

“Rabbi Nehemiah says: [She foresaw that he would be] worthy of prophecy” – That is to say, Moses’ mother saw something in him that was not typical. Guided herself perhaps through prophecy, she saw God’s presence in this child in a way that made her confident he would be saved if she took extraordinary measures, which might explain why she sent him off in a basket down the Nile River.

The Talmud’s final two explanations are based on another appearance of the word tov in the Torah: Va’yar elohim et ha’or ki tov*4* – “And God saw that the light was tov.”

The word tov appears seven times in the account of creation. It indicates God’s satisfaction that each of those things that are declared tov have been made complete. The Talmud’s fourth explanation builds on this.

“Others say: He was born circumcised” Circumcision is the perfection, or completion, of the male body. So when Moses’ mother sees him and declares him to be tov, it means that he came out circumcised.

Finally, the last explanation is by the Sages: “At the time when Moses was born, the whole house was filled with light — it is written here, ‘And she saw that he was tov,’ and elsewhere it is written: ‘And God saw that the light was tov.'” Moses came out glowing. He was glowing with potential, a new creation. Like the light that God created and separated from darkness on the first day, Moses’ birth heralds the dawn of something new.

Moses is certainly an extraordinary human being. He deserves to have a a story recorded in the Torah about his birth. But the truth is, every child born is beautiful, tov, in all of these senses. Beautiful, complete, perfect, blameless. A continuation of creation. But more than just tov in the present, in that miraculous moment of coming into being. A new human being is also tov in the sense of containing the potential for redemption.

That is why we welcome Elijah the Prophet at a Brit Milah or a Simchat Bat ceremony. Elijah, Jewish tradition teaches, will announce the coming of the Messiah and the redemption of the world. Every baby who is born has the potential to bring the world closer to redemption.

This is why, in our family, we tell our children “I can’t wait to see who you will become.”

This past week, the children of Newtown went back to school for the first time. Our nation is still going through a process of soul-searching after the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school. Those twenty children, all of them tovim: beautiful, perfect creations, contained within them so much potential for goodness in our world.

The tragedy has opened up a conversation about violence in our society, gun control, mental health services, violent video games, eroding moral values, and more. These are important conversations to have. While the connections between any one particular policy issue and different outcomes is often difficult to establish, there is a widespread sense that we are off course, and not doing enough to protect and cultivate the tov in our children.

Many faith communities are getting involved in these issues, including among American Jews. The leadership of Conservative Judaism, representing all of the various bodies of the movement, have recently reiterated its call for tighter regulations of the sale of guns and ammunition through adoption of common sense gun policies.

I am skeptical, given our fractured society, whether anything will be done.

But I want to come back to Nachmanides, who stated the obvious, declared, and I’ll take the liberty of making a couple of slight adjustments “All men and women love their children, beautiful or not, and they would all protect them to the best of their ability…”

We may think we are doing the best we can in our own sheltered communities. But we are part of a much larger society, in which the evidence would suggest that we are falling short of Nachmanides’ assumption. We are not protecting our kids to the best of our ability. And that has to change.

When Moses was born, light filled the room. When his mother saw it, she saw his beauty, his potential, his ability to bring goodness into the world, and she declared him tov. Every child fills our world with light. It is up to us to recognize it and build a society in which it can shine.

*1*Commentary on Exodus 2:2

*2*Exodus 2:2

*3*BT Sotah 12a

*4*Genesis 1:4

 

Connecting the Dots – Vayigash 5773

We would expect Joseph to be furious with his brothers. Several parashiyot ago we hear them say “come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we can say, ‘A savage beast devoured him.’ We shall see what comes of his dreams!”*1*

It is only thanks to Reuben and Judah’s desperate intervention that Joseph is sold into slavery instead.

Even though things eventually turn out pretty good for Joseph, just try, for a moment, to imagine what it must have been like for him when his brothers threw him into that pit so many years ago. Imagine the insults they must have shouted. The taunts. The hatred.

Even if, physically, Joseph comes out on top, I can’t imagine the emotional trauma that a younger brother would experience when his older siblings abuse him like that. We would expect that rejection to stick with Joseph throughout his life.

That is why his reaction to his brothers in this morning’s Torah portion is so remarkable.

When he finally reveals himself, listen to what he says: “I am your brother Joseph, he whom you sold into Egypt. Now, do not be distressed or reproach yourselves because you sold me hither; it was to save life that God sent me ahead of you… God has sent me ahead of you to ensure your survival on earth… it was not you who sent me here, but God…”*2*

Just contrast Joseph’s attitude to the brothers’ attitude years before. They are extremely short-sighted. They are thinking only in the moment. Here is this annoying little brother of ours. He thinks he’s so great. Just look at that ornamented tunic that he is always prancing about in. Father loves him best.

The brothers are stuck in their own anger, in the moment. When they act, they don’t consider the repercussions.

Not so Joseph. He is focused on the big picture. If there are any leftover emotions of anger, or desire for revenge, we do not see them.

Instead of his brothers comforting him and apologizing to him, it is Joseph who is doing the comforting! They don’t even have a chance to apologize. He absolves them of guilt, explaining their horrible behavior as God’s plan. It had to happen that way so that Joseph could be brought to Egypt, become vizier to Pharaoh, and save their lives.

The entire Joseph story is marked by peaks and valleys. Joseph rises to the top, and then is cast down, only to rise again in most remarkable fashion. We see this pattern repeat itself in his father’s house, Potiphar’s estate, and Pharaoh’s court. Throughout, Joseph sees the active hand of God in his life. We, the readers, do not see God’s direct intervention in Joseph’s life at any point in this story.

It is Joseph himself who connects the dots. He chooses to see a pattern in the random events that befall him. That pattern points to a Divine purpose. A purpose that is first foretold in his boyhood dreams of his brothers bowing down to him. Now we discover that those dreams have been fulfilled, in the most extraordinary way.

Unlike the rest of the Book of Genesis, in which God’s hand is much more apparent, the Joseph saga is like the world we know. We, like Joseph and his brothers, choose how to see the peaks and valleys of our lives.

Are they a series of random dots, ultimately patternless and meaningless. Are we alone to make decisions by ourselves? When outside forces impinge on our lives for good or for bad, are they essentially random and unpredictable?

Or, do we connect those dots in a way that points to a purpose for our existence? Do we see the things that happen to us in the context of Jewish history? Do Jewish beliefs, traditions, and practices help us contextualize the blessings and tragedies that we all face? In short, is God involved in a purposeful way in our lives?

*1*Genesis 37:20

*2*Genesis 45:4-8

I got some ideas from a D’var Torah called Unanticipated Consequences, by Rabbi Marc Wolf, Vice Chancellor and Director of Community Engagement for the Jewish Theological Seminary

The Miracle of the First Night – Chanukah 5773

Imagine that you were with the Maccabees. You have been fighting for three years against the Greeks for religious freedom, for the rights of Jews living in their homeland to practice their religion and customs according to their ancient traditions. Finally, you and your fellow soldiers have recaptured the Temple in Jerusalem. As you walk through the ruined and defiled grounds, you see the refuse of idolatrous sacrifices polluting the sacred space. The holiest items: the altar, the special table that stood outside the Holy of Holies, and the menorah, the seven branched candelabrum, are strewn about, shattered and soiled.

It is time now to reinstate the way of life that you have been fighting for these past three years, to rededicate the Temple. Time to reinstitute the daily worship of God. First and foremost among those rituals, the daily lighting of the menorah.

But there is a problem. You need fuel – oil. And not just any oil will do. You need special, purified olive oil to do it properly, but there is none to be found. There is, however, lots of defiled oil. Large open vats of it, in fact.

So now you are faced with a dilemma. What to do? You could just get some of the defiled oil and use that. After all, getting the menorah lit and starting up the sacrifices is the main point, isn’t it? Why not just use the regular stuff for the time being?

But that will not do. What have you been fighting for these past three years? For your ancient laws and traditions. No. It must be done properly. We cannot compromise our standards.

So you and your fellows begin to look around among the refuse. After hours of searching, a child runs up, excited, clutching a container of oil. The wax seal is embossed with the symbol of the High Priest, indicating that the olive oil inside is pure, and fit for Temple use.

This small discovery raises another dilemma. There is enough oil to light the daily offering once. But it is going to take at least another week before more purified oil can be prepared. You could use this oil, but you will face the exact same situation again tomorrow. The rededication of the Temple will fizzle out after only a day.

Someone speaks up with a rational proposal. “Why bother lighting a flame that is bound to burn out before the Temple is rededicated? Let’s wait a week for the olive oil presses to ramp up production. Then, we’ll have all the fuel we need. We can start up the daily offerings without having to worry about what to do tomorrow. It’s been three years. What is one more week?”

But that is not what you decide to do. You light the menorah on the spot – right then and there. We don’t know what tomorrow will bring. There are no guarantees. But right now, in this imperfect moment, when we have no assurance that we will be able to complete the rededication of the Temple, we can take advantage of the opportunities before us, and light the lights.

So that is what you do. The soldiers gather around, and watch as the newly instated priest breaks open the seal on the jar of oil, fills the cups in the menorah, and kindles the flame.

You are probably familiar with the miracle that comes next. After one day, the light still burns. It continues to burn, defying everyone’s expectations, for seven additional days. Finally, a new batch of oil is ready, and the daily offerings can continue.

So what is the miracle of Chanukkah? That the small amount of oil, which was only enough for one day, burned for eight days? That is what we are taught. But truth be told, it’s kind of weak.

The Rabbis ask a question. Technically, the miracle only lasted from days 2 through 8. Perhaps, therefore, if Chanukkah is meant to celebrate the miracle of the oil, it should only be celebrated for seven days. There was no miracle on the first day, because there was enough oil.

Rabbi David Hartman suggests that “the miracle of the first day was expressed in the community’s willingness to light a small cruse of oil without reasonable assurance that their efforts would be sufficient to complete the rededication of the Temple.”*1*

In fact, that is the real miracle. We tell the story of Chanukkah, and we just kind of rush through our explanations of the oil burning seven days longer than it should. But for the Maccabees who had to make the decision about what to do, they were stepping out into the unknown.

They acted, even though there was no guarantee of success, no sure knowledge of how things would turn out in the end.

Miracles require human agency. They require courageous decisions by committed people who are not assured of a positive outcome.

Most of us, when considering whether to undertake an action whose completion is not guaranteed, tend to not start. That is the rational approach, after all. Why waste the effort?

But sometimes, the decision to act, especially when the outcome is unknown, leads us down new, unexpected paths, and opens doors that we could have never foreseen.

That is the miracle of the first day of Chanukkah. That this ragtag group of Maccabees took advantage of the opportunities that were presented to them in that moment, in the form of a small vessel of oil. “The Hanukkah lamp burned for eight days because of those who were prepared to have it burn for only one day.”*2* Their action opened doors for future miracles. Not just the miracle of the oil. But the miracle of Jewish independence, and ultimately, the miracle of Jewish survival for the next two thousand years, until the present day.

Like the small vessel of oil that, overcoming all logic, refused to burn out, we the Jewish people, who have always been small, have stubbornly held on to our way of life no matter what opposition we faced. And here we are today. The miracle of Jewish survival is a product of our people’s willingness, through the generations, to step out boldly into the unknown even though the future was uncertain.

But we do not need to look only to the grand sweep of history to find this. We face it every day. How often do we not act because the outcome is uncertain, or because we think our actions are futile? For example: The persistence of poverty, in the poorest countries of the world as well as in our own city, is so overwhelming that it seems like no action that we take could make a dent. Many of us choose inaction, excusing ourselves with the knowledge that nothing we do will make an impact.

If there is a lesson from our tradition, and especially from Chanukkah, it is that we never know what the future will hold. Offering up an unknown outcome as an excuse for present complacency is just laziness. We have to be Maccabees, who responded to the opportunities that the moment presented.

Tonight, we light the first flame of Chanukkah. Fortunately, for us, Chanukkah candles come in boxes of 44, just enough to get us through eight days. But as we light that first flame, let us go back to the original Chanukkah, when the future was uncertain and the present demanded us to be courageous, and stand up for our ideals and our way of life. Let us light the first light.

*1*David Hartman, “Trusting in a New Beginning,” in A Different Light: The Hanukkah Book of Celebration, ed. Noam Zion and Barbara Spectre, p. 195.

*2*Ibid, p. 196.

 

The Cooperation of Sun and Rain – Noach 5773

I find it amusing how companies that produce baby toys use the theme of Noah’s Ark so much. You know, an old guy in a big wooden boat and two of every animal. It makes one wonder if the folks who use that imagery have ever actually read the story of Noah’s Ark. It does not paint a pretty picture. And it is certainly not a baby story.

There is an important thread running through this morning’s Torah portion, Parshat Noach, that captures the essence of the human condition, as well as God’s most basic hope for humanity. It is a theme that is revealed in God’s decision to wipe out life on earth, in God’s promise to Noah never to do it again, and in the later story of the Tower of Babel. What does God want from us? What is our purpose in being here? Parshat Noach teaches that the primary obligation of humanity is to build a society that enables every one of its members to flourish. That is what we are here for.

Ten generations after creating the world, God looks at it and is filled with regret. Humanity has corrupted the earth and filled it with violence and lawlessness.

And so God decides to wipe out all life and start over.

What is different before and after? How can God be certain that the near universal corruption that characterizes Creation 1.0 will not reemerge in Creation 2.0?

As commentator Robert Saks describes it, Creation 1.0 is a “pre-legal world.” There are no laws, no external rules telling people how to distinguish between good and bad. God expects people to just kind of know for themselves. Perhaps the quality of having been created in the Divine Image was supposed to have enabled us to figure things out on our own. It finally reaches the point at which the entire world has become inundated by evil. God regrets having made humanity. God’s entire assumption about life on earth, that human beings would know, by some internal moral barometer, how to behave, is flawed. The Divine Image in which every person was created seems to have been repressed.

This is not a judgment and punishment of the world. There is no language of that. The text of the Torah does not dwell on human wickedness, and God does not send them any warnings. While we might be happier if people had been given a chance to mend their ways, that is not the purpose of this story. God is sad and regretful. So God decides to wipe away life on earth. As in, with an eraser. Think of it as reformatting the hard drive.

But there is a problem. There is one man who is righteous, the only one in the entire generation. It is not so much that God saved Noah. According to Saks, God sees Noah and “knows that [God] will have to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.”*1* Indeed, this will become the major ethical question of the new world that is about to emerge.

So God instructs Noah to build an ark for himself, his family, and representatives of every species of animal on earth. What is an ark? Basically, it is a floating box with no rudder, sails, or helm.

Once Noah and the others enter the ark, God seals it from the outside, and promptly forgets about them. In the ark, they are in a different dimension than the rest of the world, so that when the waters of chaos rush in to erase the earth, those in the ark are not part of it.

Eventually, after the floods have risen to submerge the highest peaks, God remembers Noah, and causes the waters to gradually recede.

When Noah emerges from the ark, he immediately offers a sacrifice to God. God then pledges to never again doom the earth because of human beings. “So long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.”*2* God is not going to erase creation again, even though human beings are imperfect. This is incredibly significant. In the new world order, God has given human beings a certain amount of security in knowing that the earth will be here for the long haul. God strikes a covenant with Noah. A covenant is a solemn promise that establishes a permanent relationship between two parties. That is what God is offering humanity – a permanent relationship.

But of course, there are some stipulations. Human beings will have some obligations in this new world order. Among them, we have to establish rules. The Torah states it in the most basic of terms: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in His image did God make man.”*3* This poetic verse is the basis of civilization. There is a fundamental equality between every human being, and we humans have an obligation to create societies with rules that we enforce to protect that fundamental equality.

That is God’s plan for humanity. That we should learn to live together in such a way that the part of us that is made in the Divine image can flourish.

We saw what happened when there were no external rules. That was the state of things before the flood. Humanity embarked on a destructive path that could not be sustained.

We are given the first clue that something is different as soon as the animals take their first steps on dry land. Instead of coming out as they had entered, l’minehu, as different species. when the animals emerge from the ark, they come out l’mishp’choteihem, as families.*4* Instead of highlighting the distinction, the separateness, between the different species, the Torah nows emphasizes family relationships. The new world order will depend on people coming together as families, as cultures, and as communities with their own traditions. This is highlighted in the story that comes at the end of the Parshah, the Tower of Babel. It is the origin myth of the diversity of human culture. After banding together to try to build a tower to the heavens and overthrow God, God confounds peoples’ speech and scatters them across the earth.

We might be tempted to see this as a punishment for rebellion. But the scattering of humanity has its positive side too. Because it results in the development of different languages, and different cultures. And families that pass on traditions. And human societies in different parts of the world that are unique and special.

Today, we are living in the same world: post-flood, post-diluvian, if you want the fancy word. Our society is struggling to find that formula of laws and traditions that will enable every human being to flourish, to bring out that aspect of each of us that is made in the Divine image.

This all goes back to the covenant that God made with Noah, which is really a covenant with humanity.

The viability of a covenant is dependent on memory. Every covenant needs a sign. The sign of this covenant, of course, is still with us. It is used in all of those baby toys I mentioned earlier. God placed a keshet in the sky, a rainbow. It is interesting that the purpose of the rainbow is not to remind humans about anything. God says that the rainbow will remind God of the promise not to wipe out the world again. For humans, then, seeing the rainbow is a reminder of God’s promise. It reassures us that the world will continue to follow the rules of nature, and that we are free to continue our efforts to flourish.

What is it about a rainbow that makes it such an appropriate sign for this covenant?

Think about how God created the world, and then wiped it away. We read at the beginning of Genesis that the world was filled with primordial waters of chaos. God pushes these waters out of the way in order to make space for the world, and for order. When God decideds to erase that world, God releases those waters of chaos that have been held at bay. The new promise is to never do it again.

So what is so special about a rainbow? Think about how a rainbow is formed: through the cooperation of sun and rain. Of light and water.

It evokes balance, with everything in its proper place.

As Jews, we have a particular way of fulfilling our part in God’s covenant with Noah. At the very end of this morning’s Parsahah, we meet Abraham, whose children eventually become the Jewish people and receive the Torah, entering in a special covenant with God at Mount Sinai. Through living by our Torah, we fulfill that vision that God shared with Noah after he walked out on dry land: that human beings could create societies in which they truly respected the holiness of everyone.

May sun cooperate with rain. May people love and respect differences. May the vision of a rainbow-infused world become a reality.

 

*1*A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Robert D. Saks, p. 53.

*2*Genesis 8:22

*3*Genesis 9:6

*4*Genesis 8:19

 

Living with Uncertainty – Yom Kippur 5773

I am going to talk today about uncertainty, of living in a world that is often unpredictable.
We live our lives with so much uncertainty.  It is like a demon at the bottom of a pit, raising its ugly head in the hopes that we will fall in.
Think about all of the things in our lives about which we are unsure.
Our finances.  If we experienced a major personal disaster, such as an illness or the loss of a job, how long could we hold out?
The environment.  Will our planet be able to sustain us in the coming decades?
The future.  Are we handing over a world to our children that will afford them the same  opportunities to pursue their dreams?
And we face uncertainty about our souls.  Are the paths we have chosen for ourselves the right ones?  Have we made good decisions in love, in career, in community?  Or, are we holding on to regrets about the paths we did not choose to follow?
As we live life, most of us push these uncertainties, these self-doubts, out of the way.  They inhibit our ability to do all of those mundane things that are demanded of us day in and day out:  going to work, dropping kids off at school, grocery shopping, and so on.
But the demon of uncertainty is there, mouth open, always waiting.  It rears its head unpredictably, sometimes in the middle of the night when we cannot sleep, sometimes in those emotionally vulnerable moments when we question ourselves, and sometimes during the High Holidays.  This is the season when we face our fears, when we face the reality of our own mortality.
It is a time when we cannot help but address the many uncertainties in our lives.  Both the material, as well as the spiritual.
The question we must answer is how to live with it.
There are really two options.  Uncertainty can lead us to fear, or it can lead us to hope and meaning.
There once was a time when the collective uncertainty that we face could be addressed, once a year on Yom Kippur.  It was a time when the relationship between God and the Jewish people could be restored.
This morning’s Torah portion describes the ritual of the High Priest on Yom Kippur.  When we read it closely, we find that there are certain details about Yom Kippur which seem to be missing.  There is no mention of any sort of self-reflective process of teshuvah.  For that matter, there is no role for the individual Israelite.  Everything is dependent on the High Priest doing his job properly.  If he does, atonement is accomplished.  It is automatic.
It did not matter what an individual Israelite did to prepare for Yom Kippur.  Everything was in the hands of the High Priest.  As long as he performed his duties, Israelites could live with certainty.
Gradually, things changed.  The Mishnah, composed nearly two thousand years ago, records the procedure as it was practiced in the days of the Second Temple.
One of the important parts of the Yom Kippur service was the ritual of the scapegoat.  Here is how it worked:  A male goat was selected by lot.  It would then be designated by tying a crimson strip of wool cloth between its horns.  The Priest placed his hands on the goat and confessed all of the sins of the nation over it, transferring them to the poor creature.  Then, a designated man would lead the goat off into the wilderness.  When he arrived at the fateful spot, he would push the goat off a cliff to its demise.
A second century Sage, Rabbi Ishmael,*1* reports that a scarlet wool cloth was tied to the door of the sanctuary.  When the goat reached the wilderness, the red cloth would turn white in an ancient version of a status update.
Apparently, people would wait around the Temple on Yom Kippur, watching the red cloth with anticipation.  If it turned white, they would rejoice, for it meant that God had forgiven their sins.  But if it did not turn white, they would become distraught.*2*
This was a new development.  It raised the possibility that the people’s sins might not be forgiven, even if the ceremonies are all performed correctly.  Atonement was no longer automatic.
A legend remembers that, way back in the days of Shimon HaTzadik, an early Rabbinic figure, the cloth would turn white every year.  After he died, it would sometimes turn white, and sometimes turn red.  Still later, in the forty years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, it failed to turn white at all.*3*  The cloth had become something of a moral barometer of the Jewish people.
Of course, with the destruction of the Temple, all of the Yom Kippur rituals ceased.  A transition to a post-Temple Judaism was needed, along with a shift into a state of exile, a state of national and personal uncertainty.  Not only did Jews not know what the future had in store, they did not know for sure where they stood with God.
These legends about the scapegoat and the mysterious wool cloth illustrate the Rabbis’ creative understanding of life’s ambiguities.  They recognized, as we do, that our physical and spiritual existence is fraught with uncertainty.  We do not know where we stand with God.  There is no ribbon that changes colors for us, like a Divine mood ring.
Instead, on Yom Kippur, each one of us becomes a High Priest.  Our ritual worship in synagogue replaces the ritual in the Temple.  Instead of the fate of the Jewish people being determined collectively, we are dealt with as individuals.  In our mahzor, the prayer Unetaneh Tokef describes how each one of us is personally judged by God, based on evidence collected in the Book of Remembrance that our deeds have written.  The sentence is handed down:  Who will live and who will die, who by a long life, and who will come to an untimely end, who will be at peace, and who will be troubled, who will be impoverished, and who will be enriched.
But the verdict is not shared with us.  We go into the year knowing that destiny waits, but not knowing what that destiny will be.
We are told that our actions still matter, that righteousness can avert the severity of the decree against us.  Teshuvah, tefillah, and tzedakah.  Repentance, prayer, and charity can alter our fate.
Yet we still leave the experience of Yom Kippur with uncertainty.   We don’t actually know.
Every year, we come to synagogue, and we pray, and if we are lucky, we are granted  moments of insight.  We resolve to do better, to be better.  And if we are blessed with strength and courage, we come back the next year having improved, at least a little.
But the direction of our prayers is one-way.  God does not tell us whether our pleas for mercy have been accepted.  There is no red cloth that we tie to the door of the ark.  We have to take it on faith.
I struggle with this uncertainty all the time; of not knowing whether there is anyone listening to my prayers, of not knowing whether the effort to behave righteously matters, of not knowing whether there is a God who cares whether I follow Jewish law.
It is tempting to respond to the absence of proof, to the silent echo that answers our prayers, by turning away from religion.
But this is a mistake.  Religion is not here to tell us how the world works.  It is not here to offer us certainty as to what will be.  That is the realm of science.  Too often are the two confused.
Neither is religion here to promise order in a disordered world.  The great twentieth century Jewish psychologist Erich Fromm wrote that “the quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning.”  And he goes on to say  “Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers.”
Judaism offers us a way to live with uncertainty.  It instills in us a sense of awareness and gratitude, a sense of appreciation for the blessings that are so easy to take for granted.  It teaches us that the things we enjoy in this world are gifts, not givens.
Religion is here to teach us to hope for a time in which the suffering in the world will end.  And it teaches us that we are the ones who can bring that hope closer to reality.
It is not that teshuvah, tefilah and tzedakah result in a more lenient decree.  They are the ultimate acts of faith.  In the face of not knowing what will be, we act with righteousness anyways.  That is what it means to live a life of hope.
A comment I hear a lot goes as follows:  “I like that Judaism focuses on action, and it doesn’t tell you that you have to believe in God.”
Well, that’s not exactly true.  Nowhere in the Torah do we find a positive commandment to believe in God.  We do find a lot of commandments about how we are expected to behave.  The reason we are not told explicitly to believe, is that the Torah takes it for granted.
What the Torah does ask us to do, numerous times, is to walk in God’s ways.  As the Prophet Micah famously declares:  “He has told you, O man, what is good, And what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice, and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God.”*4*
This is the great act of faith in the modern age: to live a life walking in God’s ways, even though this often means walking against the currents of society, and despite not knowing with certainty whether it matters.  Every Jewish act that we are asked to perform falls into one of these three categories: justice, goodness, and humility before God.
That is the Jewish response to uncertainty.
So how will you deal with the unknown, with the precariousness upon which our lives are balanced, with the doubts we experience?
Take a step in God’s ways.
Give more tzedakah this year than you gave last year.  Volunteer to help the needy in our community.  Attend a shiva minyan for a mourner.  Refrain from passing along gossip when you hear it.  Come to shul on Shabbat.
It is the morning of Yom Kippur.  We are halfway through our fast, through our Day of Atonement.  We will spend the rest of the day reciting prayers that substitute for the ancient rituals of the High Priest.  At some point, later on, the decree that has been issued will be sealed.  We will stand together during Neilah, the final service, tired and hungry, as the gates of Heaven prepare to close.  It is the final chance to change.  An unsettling moment, but a beautiful moment.  Rich with uncertainty for the coming year, and pregnant with hope.

*1*Mishnah Yomah 6:8
*2*BT Yoma 67a
*3*BT Yoma 39a-b
*4*Micah 6:8

What is your sermon? – Yom Kippur 5773, Kol Nidrei

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.

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.