Wednesday, October 2, 2019

STEPPING INTO YOUR SELF, ROSH HASHANAH 5780 / 2019


Shanah Tovah, everyone. It is wonderful to see us all together, the Midway Family, and may we all be blessed with a New Year of Prosperity, Health, and above all, Peace.

                Several men are in the locker room of a golf club, cleaning up after eighteen holes in the hot sun. A cell phone on a bench rings and a man engages the hands-free speaker function and begins to talk. Everyone in the room stops to listen.
He says: Hello
She says: Honey, it's me. Are you at the club?
He says: Yes.
She says: I'm at the mall now and found this beautiful leather coat. It's only $1,300. Is it okay if I buy it?
He says: Sure, go ahead if you like it that much.
She says: I also stopped by the Mercedes dealership and saw the new AMG C 63S sedan. I really liked it.
He says: How much?
She says: $75,000
He says: Okay, but for that price, I want it with all the options.
She says: Great.  And one more thing. The house we wanted last year is back on the market at a reduced price. They're asking only $2.3 million.
He says: Well, go ahead and give them an offer, but start at $2 million.
She says: Okay, I'll see you later. I love you.
He says: Bye. I love you too.
The man ends the conversation, looks up, and all the other men in the locker room are looking at him in astonishment. Then he smiles and asks: Anyone know whose cell phone this is?

            Every now and then, people say. Be yourself. I think that is, in general, good advice. Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), the Irish poet and playwright, is purported to have said, “Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.” That, too, is fairly sound advice. But suppose you were to wake up one day and realize that you don’t particularly care for the person you’ve become? Should you still strive to be yourself or should you strive to make some changes and be the person you think you ought to be?

            Felicity Huffman, one of the stars of the comedy-drama “Desperate Housewives,” is one of the 51 people who got caught in a college admissions scheme that has brought shame to her and to her family. She admitted to paying $15,000 to boost her older daughter’s SAT scores in order to increase her chances of admission into a good university. “Good university,” by the way, has since been identified as places like Stanford, Yale, Georgetown and the University of Southern California.

            This is about as clear an example of cheating as there is. Why would a parent do something like this? The predominant reason given in the media was anxiety over their children’s future and whether the parents had done enough for their children. Who among us, so many parents in this room, hasn’t wondered whether we have done enough for our children?

            Should I have gotten her that math tutor in the eighth grade?
            Should I have encouraged him to take a couple more AP courses?
            Should I have discouraged her from taking so many AP courses?
            Should I have made him go to that therapist for his social anxieties?

It’s not easy being a parent.

I mention Felicity Huffman because I commend her for having come around, for having done the right thing—admitting her guilt and accepting her punishment, which includes 14 days in prison, a $30,000 fine, and 250 hours of community service. That sounds like a fair punishment, but the real punishment was not the sentence given by the judge, but the question posed to her from the daughter she wanted to help, who asked her mother why she didn’t believe in her, capping that question with a more damning statement: “I don’t know who you are anymore.” Perhaps Felicity realized that she had become someone she didn’t want to be.

            When parents take over their children’s lives, becoming their CAOs—their Chief Advancement Officers—completing their homework, writing their essays, and challenging the school every time they perceive a given grade to be unfair—they do a great disservice to their children. And this may sound a tad harsh: the disservice committed is preventing a child from either succeeding or failing on their own. There is nothing sweeter than a success achieved by one’s own independent efforts, and as for failure, parents have a critical role to play when it comes to failure. We are able to teach our kids to never confuse failure with tragedy. We’ve all learned that lesson, in many cases the hard way, but it’s true. And it’s a lesson best learned at a younger rather than an older age. To rid children’s lives of failure is to deny them an important learning experience. And if you say, not without reason, that it’s not what you know but who you know, I will counter that by saying that the who-you-know will probably open some doors for you, but ultimately it’s the what-you-know that keeps you in the room. There has to be a good deal of correspondence between what the public sees on the outside of a person and what is actually going on within the inside of a person.

L’olam yehei adam yerei shamayim b’seter uvegalui
People should always be yerei shamayim,
(something like people who act always with reverence for heaven, whatever that means)
in public and in private.

This is a truth found in our prayer books and our mahzorim, recited every single morning. It’s an ideal, to be sure, because everyone has a public life that is a little different from their private life. I would assume as much and there’s nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with a public face that is so out-of-whack with one’s private life that the two clash in what can only amount to a tragic and fatal collision.

I think very sadly about how hard it must have been for Robin Williams, a brilliant comedian and actor, to be Robin Williams. Or Kate Spade, the fashion designer, to be Kate Spade.  Or Anthony Bourdain, the celebrity chef, to be Anthony Bourdain. When they ended their lives, as all three did, we were shocked. We suddenly learned that their private persona was at serious odds with their public persona. They had so much to live for, they were all so talented, they were all so bright and creative, yet they could not synch their public and private lives? They were not the people they really wanted to be.  

There is an old midrash about Yom Kippur (really it’s about this entire season of repentance) which I have always found a bit forced, but over the years, come to appreciate. It’s a midrash in which an analogy is drawn between Yom Kippur and another Jewish holiday, but one that on the surface would seem the least likely candidate for an appropriate analogy, and that is Purim.  The midrash essentially draws this comparison on the basis of an alternative name for Yom Kippur (a Day of Atonement) which would be Yom Kippurim (a Day of Atonements). And so the midrash goes—Yom Kippur is really (and now I’m going to translate): Yom (a day), k’ (like), Purim (Purim). And how exactly is Yom Kippur like Purim? It is like Purim in a number of respects, but for our purposes, they are both days of wearing masks. On Purim, we wear the masks of Esther and Mordechai, and on Yom Kippur we wear the masks of someone we are not. We put on our masks, or in other words, we enter this whole season of teshuvah in disguise, failing to see within ourselves all the stuff that is making us believe or act in ways that do not truly reflect just how talented, just how blessed, just how loveable we really are. In our heart of hearts, we all know what we need to change, and we even come close to admitting what it is we need to change, but ultimately, change is hard. To change means having to concentrate and invest in ourselves and what happens if we fail?

            This resistance to change seems to be universal. And you know who resists change most vehemently? Addicts. Addiction is a serious problem in our nation. If you are, or you know anyone who is addicted to drugs or opioids, you need or you need to get someone else help. It’s a matter of life or death. The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimates that every day in our nation, 130 people die of drug overdose. These people have become something they are not; their addiction is preventing them from being who they truly are. There is a way to break the habit, which entails both an alternative drug therapy and a 12-Step program. The 12-Step program, I think, is a particularly effective program for those courageous enough to follow it.  And the thought occurred to me that if it works on the addicts, maybe it would work on any of us who need to change, but no matter how many times we make the commitment, the resolution, the pledge, somehow we end up drifting. Could it be that we are addicted to our own bad habits and negative attitudes?

I don’t know how many of you attend a 12-Step program, and I’m not asking you to tell me, but if you do go, I want to commend you and honor you for seeing within yourself a need that the 12-Steps addresses, and for you having the courage and discipline to change. There are 12-Step programs for alcohol addiction, drug addiction, gambling addiction, food addiction, and I wish there was one more 12-Step program for attitude addiction, devoted to all of us who are trying to kick those aspects of ourselves that are, let’s say, unlovable. It’s those personality traits that make us jealous, envious, resentful, arrogant, dismissive, condescending, temperamental, vengeful, spiteful, loud, self-righteous, petty, stingy, lazy, bigoted... I could keep going but while in the presence of a fundamentally loveable crowd such as this one, there is no need. We each know our weaknesses, we each know our shortcomings and how difficult it is to extirpate them from our character. And that’s where the 12-Step program comes in because woven within the 12-Steps is this definite world view which compels us to take the steps that move us to change.

Step #1: Admit that you are powerless over your addiction.
Step #2: Accept into your life a power greater than yourself.
Step #3: turn your life over to that power.

I need not go into all 12-Steps because the first three actually tell us something that our Jewish heritage has been telling us for 2500 years:

L’olam yehei adam yerei shamayim b’seter uvegalui
People should always be yerei shamayim (live in awe of Heaven)
in public and in private.

The 12-Step program, whether it is framed within a context of spirituality or secularism, will always remind you that you can’t do it alone, that you have to find a power greater than yourself to help you make the changes you need to make. For us, as Jews, that power is the power of yirat shamayim, living in reverence of and with reverence for heaven.

The yirei shamayim walk this world not as the king of beasts, but as guests of God in a world of His creations—the mountains and the valleys, the oceans and the heavens, the planets and the stars. They see themselves as guests in God’s home and because they are guests, they behave as guests, with a large degree of reserve and respect for the world in which they find themselves.

The yirei shamayim do see themselves as the very pinnacle of material creation. As the Psalmist puts it, “You have made humanity just a tad shy of angelic” (Psalm 8:6). The yirei shamayim can look at the crooks, the murderers, the dictators, the terrorists, and still claim that with all of its faults, human life is outstanding. And because humanity has been so marvelously crafted by God, one dare not think of harming oneself, no more than one might think of destroying the work of a Michelangelo or a Picasso, though in this case, the artist is God. That creates an urgency to synch your public face with your private face.

The yirei shamayim not only believe that they must do what is right and good and moral, but they believe that they are every year, or possibly every moment, held accountable for their every action. In other words, they are not lone actors in this world. They are partners with God—subordinate partners to be sure, but partners nonetheless—and they had better toe the line when it comes to their responsibilities in this world.

Yirei shamayim are not arrogant, for arrogance would be a sin. But yirei shamayim are confident, as creations of God, that they are worthy of love—the love of others and the love with which they ought to treat themselves. I want to let you know that we are all worthy of love. And we’re loveable not because we’re perfect—who is perfect anyway?—but we are loveable because we are the most extraordinary of all creations on earth. And until we find life elsewhere in our universe, we are the most extraordinary creations within the universe, to be loved by others, and to be worthy of self-love as well.

V’ahavta l’reiakha kamokhah
Love your neighbor as yourself… (Leviticus 19:18)

Love yourself! But that returns us to our initial question: Do you love yourself? And what happens if you don’t, if you have become someone you really don’t want to be?

Whatever it is within yourself that you don’t love, you can get rid of. But you’re going to have to admit that you are powerless, and that there does exist within this universe a power greater than you, and that this power is capable of operating within you if you let it, and with that power operating within you, you can make just about any change you put your mind to. You have to become one of the yerei shamayim, operators in life who act only with great reverence of and for Heaven, and you have to do it in public and in private. Not easy, but doable.

Does the possibility of a long-term period of concerted effort scare you? Don’t let it scare you. Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden. They lived together, east of Eden, tilling the earth, raising children, and struggling to stay alive. After years of struggle, when their children were grown, the dog had died, the mortgage was paid, they decided to travel and see the world.  They journeyed from one corner of the earth to the next. In the course of their journeys, they happened upon the entrance to the Garden of Eden, the old neighborhood, now guarded by the cherubim, angels, bearing an eternally turning, flaming sword. They considered whether or not it was possible to return to it.  Suddenly, the cherubim disappeared, the eternally turning, flaming sword vanished into thin air; the path into the Garden opened and a marvelously rich voice filled the air: “Eve, Adam—if you really want to return, you are free to enter.” Adam and Eve immediately recognized the voice as the voice of God. God had not spoken to them since their exile and now God spoke again, this time with an invitation to return to paradise. But the two had forgotten what paradise was like, and so far as they were on vacation, they wanted to know what they could expect should they devoted their limited time to a trip to Eden.  So this is where God had to become a travel agent, to explain the better features of Eden. “The Garden is paradise,” God responded. “In the garden there is no work, no struggle, no toil, no pain, no suffering. In the Garden there is no self-consciousness, no moral dilemmas, and no challenges. Day after day, life goes on, uneventful, no surprises, everything is perfectly controlled. It is an endless life of ease.” Eve turned to Adam and Adam to Eve, whereupon Eve said, “Our lives together have been all about the challenges we’ve met, the successes we’ve achieved, and the failures we’ve overcome. It has been the crises that we have endured, without running away from them, hiding from them, that have made us the humans we are today.” And Adam, reflecting on Eve’s response and God’s description of paradise, concluded, “It sounds like a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.” The two turned their backs on paradise, and as Eve and Adam continued on their journey having refused even an hour or two in Eden, one could hear that deep, resonant voice again say, “Good choice.” (After a tale by Rabbi Ed Feinstein).

            If you were to think back on some of the most memorable moments in your life, aside from those times when the One Arm Bandit smiled generously upon you in Vegas, the moments we appreciate the most are very often connected to extended periods of sacrifice. These are periods in our lives when we kept late hours, concentrated on just a few goals, exerted ourselves mentally and physically, and accomplished what we needed to accomplish either on our own or with a trusted team. We shortchange ourselves when we think that what we have coming to us we can get for free. And what we get for free, when we get it, is not appreciated, for after all, we exerted no effort in obtaining it. Change is difficult, but if you really want to change, the difficulties are what make the whole process worthwhile.

            One last thought. We believe in the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. We also believe in the God of Sarah, the God Rebecca, the God of Rachel and the God of Leah. There is only one God, but each of our ancestors had their own unique relationship with God. Their God is not going to help you. Only your God is going to help you, and your God is the God that you establish an intimate relationship with. It’s your God who will be your higher power.

            Be yourself, but be the self that is fashioned by God. Don’t be the self fashioned by resentment, hatred or jealousy, drugs, alcohol or gambling or an unhealthy solicitousness for your children. Be the self in private that everyone loves in public, and if you fail, that’s no sin. The only sin is to think that change is impossible… And also answering someone else’s cell phone pretending to be someone you are not.

            Shanah Tovah, everyone.


Friday, July 5, 2019

THE ROW OVER ROE


To write about abortion these days is a sign either of courage or madness, and perhaps a bit of both. Nonetheless, to ignore abortion given the distressing and volatile space it occupies in contemporary political discourse strikes me as negligent, and it’s not as if Torah doesn’t have a thing or two to say about the matter. As with so many tough issues that require thoughtful reflection, Torah urges us to use one of God’s greatest gifts to us: our reason. Let’s indulge both our courage and our madness in thinking however briefly about this troubling debate within the nation.

To begin with, a clarification: The abortion debate in our nation will be addressed through the courts, a dauting task even for so august an institution as the American judicial system since abortion is so much a tangle of ethics, faith, biology, and identity. My approach will focus heavily on the moral, not legal dimensions of abortion. The legal discussion is best left to lawyers and the courts. Secondly, let’s agree to reject those simple-minded labels: pro-choice and pro-life. Quick and dirty political tags are designed to create adversity, not clarity, as if pro-lifers reject choice and pro-choicers reject life. I wish people were that neatly categorized, but they aren’t.

Many Jews believe that the thrust of Torah, because it allows for abortion, somehow is protective of a woman’s right to choose. Only half of this perception is true. Torah does allow for abortion under certain circumstances, but the license it gives to abortion is not based on a woman’s autonomous self. The Torah permits abortion based on its perception that a fetus is not a human being. A fetus would be regarded as something more akin to a growth, or an organ like any other organ in female anatomy, and as such, its removal can in no way constitute murder. Moreover, if given the choice between saving the life of a viable human being and an organ that poses some sort of threat to that human being, the Torah is fairly certain that the mother’s life takes precedence.

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law, and thus all such laws, that prohibited abortion under any circumstances. The decision was largely based on the presumption of a constitutional right to privacy which would cover a woman’s decision to end her own pregnancy, again under certain circumstances. What made the decision controversial was a serious question about whether the US Constitution actually did provide for a right to privacy, and even if it did, whether such a right would cover abortion. Moreover, the decision provoked protest and outrage since not everyone sees the fetus as would the Torah, as a mere growth or organ of the mother. If the fetus is a human being, then ending its life is murder, and no right to privacy can possibly used to condone murder.

The story goes that Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971) was given to removing his $0.25 copy of the Constitution from his back pocket, waving it about and declaring something to the effect of—I searched through this document and can’t find any provision for a right to privacy. Most legal scholars would agree that there is no explicit clause to that effect, but might also argue that the Constitution does provide for certain protections that seem to emanate from a concern for privacy. Leaving that legal argument behind, it seems to me incongruous that a document serving as the basis for American civil liberties could not in some way be understood as protective of privacy, but even that is a far cry from a clear and unequivocal right to privacy. You can see why Roe rests on contested, and thus shaky legal grounds.

But today, in 2019, Roe is challenged in another way that the justices in 1973 could not have anticipated. Attitudes toward pregnancy have adjusted in line with medical advances that have made pregnancy and birth much safer. Mothers are exposed to the fetus’ heartbeat, sex, a photo of the fetus in situ, and the potential for any birth defects. Twenty-first century parents may hang that sonogram photo of the fetus on the refrigerator, attend a baby shower, arrange for a Gender Reveal party at which the baby’s gender is announced, and even create a Facebook page for the anticipated arrival. They may even name the fetus before its birth. Parents and health care providers have conferred, most likely inadvertently, a kind of personhood on the fetus that it heretofore did not have, and when popular perception of a fetus evolves from the mysteries surrounding gestation to an entity treated as a person with a specific identity, some future Supreme Court just might champion a State’s interest or obligation to protect life over and above any right to privacy that Roe attempted to guarantee.

The rate of abortions seem to be diminishing, according to those who monitor these surgeries. That’s a good thing. I wouldn’t wish any woman the trauma of having to terminate a pregnancy. On the other hand, a legal system that would force women to bear children they do not want would create a host of social problems that would not bode well for babies, mothers, parents, politicians, the nation, and a host of others we could probably enumerate without end. But as you can see, there are good reasons why the abortion question remains as divisive and volatile today as it was 50 year ago. In the end, I doubt that the Torah could unequivocally conclude that abortion should be either legal or illegal. As with so many ethical questions, the genius of Torah assures us that the justice of any one abortion will always be bathed in the shifting light and shadows of the reasons why it is sought. And to wade through that morass of factors, circumstances, emotions, apprehensions, etc., will take a Solomon, not a Supreme Court.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

THE TREE OF LIFE / THE SOURCE OF LIFE


The settings for our nation’s now not uncommon mass shootings are varied in size and function. In size, they may be as broad as an outdoor music festival as in Las Vegas or as confined as a night club in Orlando. In function, they may be as secular as a business’ central headquarters or as spiritual as a church. If there were a hell, there would certainly be a special spot in it for those who would open fire in God’s holy precincts, second only to the most unconscionable of all settings, a school, as was the case in Newtown, CT and Parkland, Florida.

The Jewish community, ever sensitive to the senseless loss of God’s children, has always been shaken by these mass shootings, the latest of  which took place at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue on a Shabbat morning. Eleven members of the tribe lost their lives that day in a barrage of bullets triggered by a man full of hate. There is no setting “better” than any other when it comes to the loss of life, but the shooting in one of God’s holy sanctuaries does raise that age-old question with even greater poignancy: where was God? Where was ‘the Guardian of Israel who neither slumbers nor sleeps”? (Psalm 121:4). Where was the Source of Life of whom the psalmist wrote:

The Lord will guard you from all harm;
He will guard your life.
The Lord will guard your going and coming
Now and forever. (Psalm 121:7-8)

Our good member, Sharon Aaronson, has raised this question, as I am sure so many of us have, because of all the places one might rest assured of God’s safety and security, a sanctuary would be top on the list. Apparently, it isn’t necessarily so. How do we reconcile the paradox of violence in God’s spaces of peace?

God has given us two tremendous gifts--one is the gift of Torah and the other is the gift of freedom. Torah teaches us how to live and freedom gives us the liberty to live as we choose, including ways that run counter to Torah. If we were so constituted as to be unable to violate law and tradition, that would be the greatest proof that humans are trapped--allowed to make certain choices but prevented from others. That's neither reality nor freedom. We can all choose to live in any number of ways--healthy and unhealthy, safely and dangerously, lovingly and hatefully. God teaches us which are the best choices, but does not make the choice for us.

When our kids first began to drive a car solo, it was a bit nerve-wracking, yes? The best way to keep them from an accident is to never have them drive or enter a car to begin with. But that would be a terrible decision. Our children need freedom; all people do. But with freedom comes a certain degree of risk as not all people make the choices that are godly. We are all free to abuse our freedom. If we were not free to do so, we would not be free.

As tempting as it is to question God when it comes to the senseless massacres of this world, we may just try thinking of God as asking us a few questions as well:
1.   Why are you blaming Me for Pittsburgh? Did I give this man an assault rifle?
2.  Why are you blaming Me for Pittsburgh? Did you not learn anything after Sandy Hook?
3.  Why are you blaming Me for Pittsburgh? Did I teach you to hate your neighbor?

At a time like this, it is easy to question God, but it’s a dodge. The most damning aspect of all these shootings is that we have the power to, in the very least, minimize the casualties, and somehow society has managed to skirt the challenge.

Still, we may charge God with a degree of irresponsibility. If God is as omnipotent and as omniscient as the divine reputation goes, where is the divine intervention when needed. A couple of responses are warranted here, the first of which is this: how do we really know that there is no divine intervention? Only God knows how many other shootings have been foiled or averted, remaining unaccounted as they never materialized to begin with. But there is a stronger idea to contend with when it comes to God’s omnipotence and that is this: Is God really omnipotent? The idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God is actually a Greek idea, not a Jewish one. The Greeks were very much involved with ideas of perfection and in imagining the perfection of the gods. They, not the Jews, imagined gods that were omnipotent and all-knowing. A close reading of the Bible, written of course from a Jewish perspective, does not give us an idea of a perfect or omnipotent God. Our God is much more human—making decisions, regretting them, becoming angry, overcoming anger, listening to people and also commanding people who nonetheless defy divine orders.

The Jewish mystics (we call them the Kabbalists) had another way of thinking about this. In order to make room for humans, God had to give up some of His power and energy in order to grant us the freedom and power to act. God did not leave us without direction, however. God did give us the Guide book to life, otherwise known as the Torah. But it’s up to us, not God, to implement it. That makes human decisions, our decisions, exceedingly important.  

Where was the Source of Life at the Tree of Life that Shabbat morning? I believe the Source of Life was in that sanctuary, calming those congregants who were hiding, strengthening those officers who were pursuing the assailant, and leading the martyred up toward the heavens above. Our God-given freedom is among the most precious gifts given to us, and also the most dangerous. We will have too take God’s injunction to preserve life more seriously, by enhancing security in our synagogues, and anywhere that people gather en masse. We will also have to vigorously pursue those social conditions that will hamper the designs of the wicked who seek to inflict damage on us and others. And we will continue to ask hard questions as there is some modicum of comfort in being able to ask and wonder. But in the end, as with so many other aspects of life, the real questions revolve not around what God can do for us, God having given us so much guidance already. The real question is what are we prepared to do for God in creating the peace that God intended us to enjoy.

THE TREE OF LIFE / THE TREE OF TRUTH



One of the tasks of the sages of old is to determine why one narrative of the Torah follows another. This phenomenon, known as semikhut parshiyot, or the juxtaposition of stories, applies to this week’s parashah, Hayyei Sarah. The first story in Hayyei Sarah, meaning “the life of Sarah,” oddly enough is not about her life but about her death. She dies at 127 years of age and Abraham must go about the business of securing land for her burial. This story follows the much discussed and debated tale of Abraham’s sacrifice, or attempted sacrifice of his son Isaac, also known as the Akeidah (literally, the Binding, Isaac having been bound upon an altar and prepared for sacrifice). So the rabbinic question in this case would be—why does the tale of Sarah’s death immediately follow the tale of Isaac’s sacrifice. The Torah is silent on this matter so the rabbis resorted to their creative juices to craft an answer. And they found their answer in Satan—the evil angel.

Satan, never up to any good, decides to inform Sarah about the attempted sacrifice. He transforms himself into the likeness of Isaac and appears before Sarah. Sarah, seeing her son, but noticing that something looks a tad off, inquires of her son’s wellbeing, asking the exact question Satan would have her ask—What has your father done to you? And so Satan, in Isaac guise, does something we would all typically admire: he tells the truth. He goes through the whole narrative—how God instructed Abraham to take the boy, travel to some far-off destination, build an altar, bind the child on the altar, prepare to offer the child to God, and with knife raised above the child’s head, an angel from heaven intervened and prevented Abraham from completing the task. Not a word Satan spoke was false, but for Sarah’s fate, it made no difference. So shaken by the initial details, her soul departed before Satan completed the full account. And that, the rabbis tell us, is the reason the tale of Sarah’s death immediately follows the tale of the  Akeidah, Isaac’s Binding.

The rabbis’ explanation is often used as a morality lesson in how we go about expressing the truth. As the old adage goes, the truth hurts. But how hurtful should the truth be? Should the truth scathe? Should it kill? Is every truth worth verbalizing if it serves no other purpose than hurting the person who hears it? As one might expect, the rabbis advise discretion. But there is another way of understanding the rabbinic tale of Sarah and Satan, and one that very much addresses the challenges of our day.

Last Tuesday, when we gathered at the Mid-Island Y in memory of our 11 slain brothers and sisters, murdered by a person filled with hate¸ I found myself incapable of singing. It was a strange phenomenon. I had already spoken on several occasions to our Religious School students about the tragedy, and had no problem discussing the massacre at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, and how our own synagogue had long ago instituted security protocols and safety measures in the interest of keeping our members safe. And yet, while on stage, before a crowd of thousands, the weight of how hateful people can be, how self-righteous they can be of their convictions, how perfectly diabolic they will act given the  opportunity, weighed heavily upon me, and I that felt if I opened my mouth the slightest, I would dissolve into tears. I was facing a truth, and the truth is that there are people in this world who absolutely detest Jews. They hate our guts.

But as true as that may be, it is also not the full truth. The first memorial I attended was sponsored by the Islamic Center of Long Island located in Westbury, NY. Imagine the Moslems pulling together a memorial in memory of 11 slain Jews. There were many rabbis and Christian ministers present, including, of course, representatives of the Moslem community. They spoke lovingly of the Jewish people, lamented the lack of civility in the nation and the hatred that is fueling so many of our debates. Last night, at our Shabbat service, two Moslem families attended to show their solidarity with us. We welcomed them and their presence was a sure gesture of their respect for us. Just a couple days ago, I received a call from our old custodian, Roberto, who just had to speak to me, to express his condolences on the murder of 11 strangers, but whom he knew as Jews and therefore connected to our community, a community of Jews whom he does know and loves. So yes, there are people in this world who hate us, but there are also people in this world who love us, and when we hear only one part of the truth, without looking at the full truth, we die the death of Sarah.

              We are living in silos of partial or incomplete truths. We talk to people who reflect our own political views rather than engaging those with different points of view. We are speaking in echo chambers and instead of reaching out to our neighbors who differ with us in love, we demonize them as the enemy and dismiss their views as dangerous. It may be very difficult to love one’s neighbor, but when we feel justified in hating our neighbors, it will almost always go nowhere good.

              Thank God for America. It has been and I suspect will continue to be a wonderful place for the Jewish people.  And for every anti-Semite who resides in this country, there is a minyan of non-Jews who love and respect us. So beware focusing on incomplete truths. We must always embrace the fuller truth. For some of us, it will be the only way we will ever be able to sing again.


Thursday, September 20, 2018

#METOO: THE SILENCED ASSAULTED SPEAK



Yom Kippur, 5779—September 18-19, 2018


            Shanah Tovah, everybody and a G’mar Tov—May we all finish the holiday season fully sealed into the Book of Life and Health, Purpose and Meaning.  And a Tzom Kal, an easy fast for us all!   

            Many years ago, and now I’m talking maybe 30 years ago, I attended an interfaith clergy conference on various contemporary issues facing the clergy. The conference took place at Seton Hall University, a leading Catholic school of higher learning located in South Orange, New Jersey. And as one of the initial exercises, the clergy was asked to share what they perceived to be was the greatest challenge in their ministry. One of the priests who held a senior administrative position at the university asked those present for help in dealing with priests who had crossed the line, who had violated their sacred vows and, succumbing to their own weakness, had engaged in inappropriate, and what we would most certainly regard today as abusive sexual encounters. Back then, I was smart enough to keep my mouth shut, and being probably the youngest clergy at the table and representing the other faith, I certainly was not going to offer any perspectives that would be heard or welcomed. But I do distinctly remember thinking that the problem was a religious regimen, namely life-long celibacy, that was just too much for most men to abide by. And being unable to abide by it, they sought release in all sorts of ways that were illegal, immoral, unhealthy, and horribly damaging to who they represented within the church. Observant Jews had their own religious regimens that limited their freedoms and possibly their pleasures, but at least it wasn’t life-long celibacy. Jews had a much more reasonable approach to sexuality. And that was what I was thinking back then.

            Fast forward some 30 years, and not only are the Catholic clergy still in the news, but thanks to the #MeToo movement, there are a whole lot of Jews in the news whose alleged behaviors have given us a whole lot of unwelcomed publicity. Of course, sexual harassment, abuse or assault is not a specifically Jewish problem, but if nothing else, #MeToo has opened up a conversation in the nation that is long overdue.  This is an issue about sin, confession, judgment, teshuvah, and the possibility of forgiveness. #MeToo is Yom Kippur material.

            The #MeToo movement has a definitive beginning in recent history, but the problem it addresses has been with us for centuries. The Bible itself records its own #MeToo drama in the story of the beautiful maiden princess Tamar, daughter of King David. Her half-brother, so this would be a son of King David, became infatuated with her. His name was Amnon. He wasn’t the brightest torch in King David’s palace and agonized for a long time over how he could seduce Tamar. He consults with his cousin who recommends that he feign illness, ask King David whether Tamar could attend to him in his illness, and in that way get his way with her. The plan works. King David consents to have Tamar serve Amnon, she does just that, bakes bread for him, and then when he is alone with her, forces himself upon her. She protests and even shouts:

Such things are not done in Israel (II Samuel 13:12)

Amnon rapes her and then loathes her, throwing her out of his room. She is beside herself, screaming, and encounters another one of her brothers who seeks to find out what happened and she tells him everything. The rape was no secret in the palace, and the news eventually reaches King David, and though greatly distressed, he takes no action to either reprimand or punish his wayward son. Two years pass. Tamar’s brother, his name was Avshalom, was seething with anger over the assault of his sister. At when time came to have his sheep sheared, which apparently also entailed partying when the day’s work was done, he invites all his brothers and King David to attend the festivities. David declines, fearing he may be a burden (he’s on in years by then). So Avshalom counters and requests that Amnon would surely be a proper substitute in the absence of his father, the king. To this David consents. Amnon went out to the sheep-shearing festival, and when he was good and drunk, Avshalom’s men, following Avshalom’s directive, murder him—and that was the end of Amnon.

            The story should have an eerily alarming ring to it. There is something clearly immoral going on in the palace or let’s say the corporation; the details, more or less, are common knowledge among the royal family or let’s say the employees; the king, or let’s say upper management,  does nothing to reprimand or stop the culprits; and finally, the outrage over the injustice of the whole thing boils over and someone ends up dead. I would say that this last development in the biblical story does not necessarily have a parallel in our contemporary world, but for the fact that 1) clearly many of the alleged perpetrators these days have had their careers ended, which is a kind of mini-death; and 2) the public shaming that comes with the outing of the alleged culprit is pretty brutal. And as the rabbis taught:

Whoever embarrasses his fellow in public
Is as one who has committed murder (Baba Metzia 58b)

And there you have it, we can even say that the sordid details of our contemporary stories of sexual abuse, along with the public outing of the abusers, end many times with their own metaphorical murder, the alleged culprits publicly humiliated and shamed by secrets now exposed.

            Amnon did not have to die. But in order for him to have lived, the story had to include a couple other episodes. Amon would have had to confess his sin and express his regret. He never did. Or his father, King David, had to act to punish his son for his crime, but King David never did. And that, too, seems to be a common motif in our contemporary tales where women have gone to HR departments or to the police or to people in positions of authority and their demand for action or just even their stories went unheeded, or were poo-pooed, or they were not taken seriously. #MeToo, I believe, is a reaction to that injustice. Since the internal departments of corporate justice or even our own judicial system routinely and consistently ignored the hurt of and assault on women, what happens? Cases that could have been prosecuted in accordance with the rules of litigation and due process, instead are tried in the worst court humanity has ever produced, and that is the court of public opinion, which has no rules of procedure, engagement or due process. And we should all be very mindful of that, because the Kangaroo Courts of this world rarely end with just acquittals or just convictions. It is almost certain that there are people who have been accused and convicted unjustly in that court of public opinion. But right now, I’m depending on the words of Matt Lauer, who issued an apology following accusations levelled against him, which read in part: “Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed,” (Matt Lauer, Statement of Apology, NBC, Nov. 30, 2017). I think Matt Lauer sort of summed it up perfectly. Given all the tales of sexual misconduct that are now in circulation, there is enough truth in all of them, for all of us to question how we go about navigating a very natural, a very human need, and that is the need for physical intimacy.

            Many years ago, while a rabbi in New Jersey, our school depended to some extent on the teachers we could secure from the Orthodox community. And they were lovely, competent teachers who helped staff our faculty. One day I walked into a classroom, just to see how the class was operating, the Orthodox teacher looks at me and then at the children and says, “Yeladim (Children). The rabbi is here. We rise.” So all these pitzalach—they were third or fourth graders—they all stood up and looked at me. I was so taken by surprise that I literally turned around to see what rabbi had entered the classroom, until it dawned on me that she was referring to me. So then I said something like “Uhmm, you guys can sit down.” After class, the teacher approached me, having sensed that I was a little uncomfortable with what had transpired, and asked if she had made a mistake in asking the children to rise. So I told her—No mistake, but really, we just don’t do that around here. In Passaic, in the Orthodox synagogue, I suppose when the rabbi walks in, everybody rises, but in Springfield, NJ, in the Conservative synagogue, it just doesn’t happen, and it never did again after that particular incident.

            The fact of the matter is that our world often does not treat authority with the honor it deserves. But the flip side of that is much worse. It is people of authority who exploit their authority, and use it for personal gain or profit, motivated by their own selfish interests. The #MeToo stories are very often stories of this type of abuse, the abuse of personal authority. So a person in a position of power—the head of a movie studio, a network news anchor, a politician, a CEO, a clergy person, even a popular stand-up comedian, uses their own special authority, that power, over someone of lesser or subordinate power or authority for sexual favors. One could say that the person of lesser power or authority should have the presence of mind or self-will to resist, and there is some truth to that, but it’s not always possible physically, because that person in power may literally be overpowering, and it’s not always possible to think of an exit plan when taken by surprise.

            In the Greek and Roman world of antiquity, this sort of power or authority asymmetry in sexual relationships was a social norm. It was not uncommon for the actors in an intimate duo to be a master and a slave or a mentor and his student. The Judeo-Christian world largely rejected that type of intimacy and the wisdom of that position has been made manifest via the #MeToo movement as so many of the stories are stories between people of unequal power where the sexual overtures were unwelcomed and the subordinate actor in that duo felt trapped, and in the end, violated.

            The sexual harassment laws in New York are very broad. Almost anything said of a remotely sexual nature, if it makes a fellow employee uncomfortable, can be viewed as  a violation of those standards. I’m not necessarily talking about those incidents. People say stupid things all the time. They probably live their lives with little discretion or a deficit of tact. Government will never be able to legislate stupidity out of the human race, try as it may. But what I am talking about is a more fundamental aspect of our humanity, our sexuality, and how we go about the business of establishing an intimate relationship. And regardless of what the sexual revolution might say about who we are as sexual beings, creating proper physical intimacy has always been and always will be an exercise in morality. It is with considerable forethought and insight that within the confessional we recite repeatedly throughout this Yom Kippur, we will say—Al het shehatanu, We have sinned against You through sexual immorality.

            The sexual revolution of the 60’s was a sort of double-edged sword. It definitely brought a kind of freedom or openness to human intimacy, welcomed by many, but it also advocated the the release of sexuality from its traditional mooring in a loving monogamous relationship. The distance between that conception of sexual freedom and monogamous partnership is a few football fields and their parking lots. I’m not that naïve as to think that intimacy in this world will always and only take place within loving, monogamous relationships, but if I were to frame a rule here, I’d say that the casual relationship, that is not a consensual relationship, is also not a kosher relationship. I don’t like coercion in virtually any context, but coercion in a sexual relationship is a violation of a person’s humanity. It is really low. When we hear the slogan, as we sometimes do, that No means No, it is a piece of wisdom formulated by the rabbis some 2000 year ago who said:

Your “yes” should be genuine and your “no” should be genuine (Baba Metiza 49a)

That means that we have to speak truthfully but we also have to listen respectfully. No really does mean no.

The #MeToo movement may be a transition into a new awareness of sexuality or just a temporary eruption of anger that will subside and people will go back to the same sordid interactions, authorities subduing subordinates, men taking advantage of women, and nothing will change. But for argument’s sake, let’s assume the best. Let’s say that yes—this is a moment of extraordinary transition where everything is going to change. What exactly is it that has to change?

When the Torah describes the first sexual encounter, which as you may well imagine was that between Adam and Eve, the Torah reads:

And Adam knew his wife, Eve (Genesis 4:1)

            The verb “know” in this case is a euphemism for sexual intimacy. But the Hebrew root from which it emanates, yod-dalet-ayin, is a root that suggests a deep appreciation or love of someone. So, for example, when God is unable to keep from Abraham the imminent destruction of two wicked cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, God declares:

Because I know him… (Genesis 18:19)

I know this Abraham character—how he interacts with his children and teaches them about love and how he is really concerned with what is just and right. God knows Abraham but even more deeply appreciates him for who he is. The Hebrew verb used for God’s knowing of Abraham is the same Hebrew verb used for the sexual intimacy between Adam and Eve. In other words, the Torah perceives of physical intimacy, certainly of that between the first man and woman, as something greater than a biological act. It would be a sort of culmination of profound appreciation and love for one’s partner. Sexual encounters that are acts of domination—assault, rape, anything of a coercive, non-consensual nature—would be the very opposite of that knowing, that paradigm. It would be a willful act of ignoring another person and treating them as a means toward one’s own selfish ends.

            It doesn’t take a whole lot to be a Jew. If your mother is a Jew, then you are a Jew. But to be a repentant Jew, to be a Jew who is impacted by a 3500 year old tradition, that already takes a willingness and an openness to seeing humans in a special way. They are not merely the upper tier in the pyramid of animal evolution, they are not to be viewed as units of labor, they are not nameless, they are not singularities disconnected from family or cultures, and they are not play things to be used for anyone’s personal pleasure. We are, each of us, reflections of a greater energy, and fragments of that greater power, and within each of us burns a flame of godliness that makes each and everyone of us beyond precious, and sacred. And yes—in that sacred mixture are problems, shortcomings,  and failures. Actually, our problems and shortcomings and failures are part of our humanity and we had better understand that from the start and respect it, for there is no other way for any of us to appreciate each other without an acceptance of the totality of our humanity, which is a complicated composition.

            To manipulate a person emotionally is a sin. To defraud a person financially is a sin. And to exploit a person sexually is a sin. All those crimes take place when people view the other as a commodity to be used and not an organic, evolving, creation of God to be cherished. It all begins with the delusion that the world exists in order to satisfy our personal cravings. It doesn’t.

If there is to be teshuvah, if there is to be repentance, there has to be some realization that the person manipulated, defrauded, exploited, raped—that was someone’s daughter, that was someone’s sister, that was possibly someone’s mother. The hurt will end when we begin to see others in the fullness of who they are, and not in the narrowness of what we want them to be, in the moment. To achieve repentance, you have to really believe that you have been created b’tzelem Elohim, in the image of God, and that so has everyone else. And I don’t think we can force anyone to believe that because it’s a sacred myth of the Jewish people, it’s a conception of humanity that guides us in how we treat each other, it is a question of faith.

And you may say—Wait, rabbi, people of faith have also abused others sexually in profoundly offensive ways. And you’re sort of right. But I’m telling you now—they’re fakin’ it! No one of genuine faith can abuse a child of God, and we are all children of God.

            And then there’s something else we can’t force—forgiveness. I can tell you that forgiveness is a Jewish value and when one can reach that space that we call forgiveness, that is a special place of kedushah, of holiness. But like a whole lot of other things in life, I don’t think we can coerce or guilt anyone into that space. Reaching that space is a personal venture, it depends on the character of they who have been wounded, and the repentance of they who have inflicted the wounds. But wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where in fact the culprits could admit guilt and repent, and where the victims could prevail upon their past and forgive?

            Ours is a tradition that is very optimistic. In Psalm 92 we read that the wicked of the world are numerous, proliferating like grass, but like grass they eventually wither and remain destroyed forever. On the other hand, the righteous shall blossom like the date palm. If you’ve ever seen a cluster of dates on a date palm, you know how numerous they can be. A mature date palm can produce between 150-300 pounds of dates per harvest. That’s a lot of dates. The righteous shall blossom like a date palm. The word for date in Hebrew is Tamar, just like King David’s daughter.

Tzadik kaTamar yifrah!
The righteous shall flourish like Tamar (Psalm 92:13)

Tamar was so shocked when Amnon attacked her:

Such things are not done in Israel (II Samuel 13:12)

Tamar got that a little wrong. Such things are sadly and tragically done in Israel, that is among Jews. What Tamar should have said is that such things should never be done in Israel. Let’s hope and pray that the Tamars of this world secure the justice they deserve, and that people will recognize the righteousness of their cause. Justice delayed is justice denied and in this case, justice has been delayed and denied for far too long.

Ge’mar Hatimah Tovah—May all be sealed into the Book of a good and a just Life.