Let’s start with a riddle:
Everybody thinks that they have me, but very few really do.
In fact, if anyone ever tells you that they have me…doubt them immediately.
But if you do have me, you have peace.
For without me there is only sin.
What am I?
Simple. I am humility.
Everyone thinks they have humility, but very few really do.
In fact, if anyone ever tells you that they have great humility, doubt them immediately.
If you do have humility, they you will have peace.
Without a sense of humility there can be only sin.
It is true, humility is a fickle friend. We all know that it is the only true path towards a pious, righteous life. We also all know how to get it: eschew accolades, avoid the egotistical impulse, and constantly remember that we are but dust and ashes. But the moment we obtain it, the very instant our humility is achieved, we smile a proud smile and it instantly vanishes from within our grasp.
The most amazing thing about humility is that no matter who you are, no matter what you do in life, no matter how much or how little you have, we all seem to suffer the same fate: we are needlessly prideful.
There is a famous Hasidic teaching which illustrates this unfortunate truth:
“Rabbi R’phael of Bashard said: When I get to the World to Come, I will have a valid excuse for every sin I have committed in this world, save one:
Let me explain, when the Heavenly Beit Din asks me: Why did you not busy yourself with the Holy Torah? I will answer: I did not know the Torah, I was a Bor, a empty pit, an Am HaAretz, an imbecile. I simply did not have the intellect to be a student of Torah!
And when they ask me: then why did you not serve God through prayer and Ma’asim Tovim, good deeds?
To this I will answer: I just didn’t have the free time. I was so busy finding food for my family, I just never got around to praying or doing acts of loving kindness.
And when they ask me: Then why did you not afflict yourself, taking on personal fasts of penitence?
I will answer them: Because I was a sickly person and I was afraid fasting would endanger my life.
And when they continue and ask me: So why did you not give Tzedakah?
I will tell them: I did not have any money to give! I was a poor, impoverished person.
But, when they ask me: You, who are an imbecile, a beggar, a weak and sickly man, why then did you commit the sin of being prideful? What is the source of this pride?
For this I will have no reply, for this I will have no answer at all.”
The story is humorous but illustrative as well. It employs the famous Kal v’Homer argument: if an imbecilic, weak-minded, sickly pauper can’t stop themselves from committing the sin of being overly prideful; then how much the more so, someone who is intelligent, learned, sprite and wealthy!
And yet, there is one man in our tradition, and only one man, who merited the oxymoronic title: “the most humble man on earth” and that was Moshe Rabbeinu, our great teacher Moses.
In this morning’s parsha, in a fascinating passage which could be the source of a thousand sermons, Moses is given his most famous accolade: the most humble man on earth. The context of this title is what is interesting: it comes within a narrative where Miriam and Aaron are gossiping about Moses behind his back. They seem to be upset by his choice of spouse or by the fact that God seems to favor Moses over his prophetic siblings. Right after their complaint, almost as a non-sequitor we are told:
וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָֽאָדָם אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָֽאֲדָמָֽה:
“Now Moses was a very humble man, more so than any other man on Earth.”
Rashi explains that Moses’ humility can be described in two ways:
Firstly he was Shafal, lowly; meaning he never ascribed greatness to himself or to his role in leading the people out of Egypt, to Mt. Sinai, through the wilderness and to the edge of the Promised Land. Indeed the midrash teaches us that it is:
“Because of his humility, that Moses was worthy to receive the Torah.” –Tanhumah Bereishit 1.6b
Secondly, Rashi explains, he was a Savlan, he had extreme patience, something that Moses clearly demonstrates each time he has to deal with the endless griping and moaning of the Children of Israel. Yet according to our tradition, even Moses’ wasn’t enough of a Savlan to merit entering the Holy Land. After all, it was in his moments of anger, smashing the tablets during the incident of the Golden Calf, and hitting the rock, instead of asking it gently for water, where he lost his temper, and perhaps he therefore lost his ability to lead the people.
So I ask you, if Moses, our greatest prophet and the most humble man on the face of the earth can’t keep it together, what chance do we have?
The answer is: none. If the most imbecilic person in the world can’t help but be prideful, and if the most humble man in the world can’t help but lose his humility in moments of anger, then no we do not stand a chance.
But perhaps that is the way that God intends it. Perhaps our quest towards living humble lives is not meant to be played out in extremes, but rather in seeking out the gentle balance between humility and pride.
In order to emphasize the need for balance in this regard the Hasidic Master Rebbe Simcha Bunim of Pessischa taught: at all times one should carry two pieces of paper in their pocket: One piece of paper, quoting the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5) should read:
בשבילי נברא העולם
The world was created for my sake alone.
The other paper, quoting our forefather Abraham, reading:
וְאָֽנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר
I am but dust and ashes.
This teaching indicates to us that there are times in life when the clarion call for action is sounded. In these moments it is our duty to arise, and pulling out the first piece of paper claim: The world was created for my sake alone! And as Rabbi Nahman of Breslav explained when we realize that the world was created for our sake alone, then we are forced at every single second to take action בְּתִיקוּן העוֹלָם in repairing the world, to seek out that which the world is lacking, and to pray that it will be completed.
But, let us not forget the other piece of paper in our pocket. Like a still, small voice it cries out to us in moments of pride reminding us that we are but dust and ashes. That we are simply a lucky collection of atoms, a modicum of carbon, destined to die like every person, every animal, and every flower has died before us.
Yes, this is the trick to life. Striking a delicate balance between moments when pride is called for, and moments when humility must drive our words and actions. And sadly, too often I think our modern leaders finds themselves painfully out of balance.
Much has been said in the past several years about the tone and tenor of our politics. Sure it has always been a dirty game to play, but there were moments in our past where a healthier balance between pride and humility led us to achieve great things, and build a healthy society in which to raise our children. But alas it seems these days the ratio has been thrown out of whack.
On Thursday I was listening to a report on NPR covering President Obama’s press conference defending his administrations’ handling of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf. One reporter, from a right-wing cable news network which rhymes with POX, asked a question of the president. The content of the question is not important, what I noticed was the tone and the language. Essentially this reporter was asking the President to admit that he was a no-good, lousy, on-the-take bureaucrat and that he should basically resign the presidency immediately or the reporter would claim a citizen’s arrest and do it for him!
I turned off the radio right then and there. Though I was hoping for the following response:
Taking out the first piece of paper with a scowl on his face he would remind the reporter that it is he, and no one else, who bears the title The President of the United States of America, that he was elected by a majority to a four-year term of office and whether you agree or disagree with any of his policies you better be certain to give him the respect that he deserves. בשבילי נברא העולם
The world was created for my sake alone.
But then he would catch himself, as he pulled out the other piece of paper and said: I am only human. I can only do my best, and you know what, often my best is just not good enough. Try as I might to remind myself that I am the most powerful man in the free world, I can’t help but also remember: וְאָֽנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵֽפֶר
I am but dust and ashes.
So I will make a suggestion: Let’s all go home after shabbas tonight, write down these phrases on two pieces of paper and place them in our pockets for perpetuity, then we will each succeed in striking the right balance in our life between pride and humility right?
No. Sadly it’s not that simple. The real trick is in knowing which situation in life calls for which piece of paper.
Shabbat Shalom.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
A Supreme Bat Mitzvah: Parshat B'midbar 5770
This Shabbas I want to ask a seemingly simply question: What is the most important quality we should be looking for in a Supreme Court Justice? If you ask the question to a pundit on FOX news the answer will undoubtedly be, we should be looking for someone who is a conservative, a strict constructionist not some liberal, activist judge who will legislate from the bench. Ask Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and she would be quick to point out that conservatives can be activist judges too! Therefore we should be looking for a justice with a penchant for progressivism, an understanding that the constitution is a living, breathing document, one that must constantly change with the times. Ask president Obama, as they did on the campaign trail, and you will get another response: The President said “we need somebody who's got…the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young, teenaged mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.” So which is it? Strict conservative constructionism, pious progressivism, or an empathetic heart and mind? What quality is most important in choosing our next Supreme Court justice?
Well, I have a different answer. Mine is simple. I believe that the most significant criterion for choosing our next justice is that this justice should be the first Supreme Cour Justice to have had a Bat Mitzvah in an Orthodox synagogue. And yes, I recognize that this criterion excludes the 49% of the population who are male, and the 97.8% of Americans who are not Jewish; but please allow me to explain why I feel it is so important that our next Justice be a Bat Mitzvah.
Some years ago as I sat in Rabbi Joel Roth’s course entitled Senior Codes, we spent countless hours poring over some of the most important Sh’elot u’T’shuvot, Rabbinic Legal Responsa ever written. In each class we read and analyzed a Rabbinic response aimed at determining the course of action which was seen as correct in the eyes of Halacha, Jewish Law, God’s desired path for humankind in this world. As Rabbi Roth adeptly explained, when you look at these T’shuvot carefully, you see how the great rabbinic judges rendered their decisions:
-Firstly, we see that the Torah is paramount to any posek, any judge of Halacha, and it must be considered with supreme respect.
-Secondly, since the Torah is not always clear about a given subject, nor can the Torah conceive of every possible scenario under the Sun, the Oral Torah, the laws of the Mishnah and the Talmud must also be consulted with extreme reverence.
-Finally, we must always look at the power of precedent. Whether it is the concept of Minhag Avoteinu B’Yadeinu, the notion that a tradition which was strictly adhered to by our ancestors becomes like a law for us today (hence this kippah that I am wearing), or simply the decision of any posek of past centuries, these cases of precedent must inform our modern responses to a question of Jewish Law.
And from all of this Rabbi Roth explained, two patterns emerge which can justify a wholesale change in the chain of Halachic precedent:
1. If the only expressed reason for the promulgation of a norm no longer obtains, the norm may be abrogated or modified. In other words, if the reason we used to do something is truly no longer relevant, then that something can indeed be changed to match current times.
Secondly, a change can be made if it is proven that:
2. The consequences of maintaining the norm are more detrimental than the consequences of modifying the law. This is of course the justification for the famous ‘Driving T’shuvah’ which argued that the consequence of maintaining the norm, namely people sitting in their suburban homes all alone on a Shabbat morning was indeed WORSE, than changing the law and permitting some to drive to synagogue.
So what does all this have to do with a Bat Mitzvah?
This brings me to a little known hamlet, tucked away in a small corner of America known as Manhattan, birthplace of our Solicitor General, and now Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
As the New York Times reported on Thursday, Ms. Kagan and her family were members of the famous modern-Orthodox shul called Lincoln Square Synagogue. She was a star student in her Hebrew school and when she turned 12 she knew that she wanted to mark her coming of age in the eyes of a Jewish people in the same way as her male coreligionists did, with a ceremony known as the Bar or Bat Mitzvah. Her Rabbi at the time was the famous Shlomo Riskin, who remembers her passion at the time with regard to adapting the precedent of tradition to more closely match the tenor of the times. The only problem was, Rabbi Riskin had never even seen a Bat Mitzvah before, what would it look like?
After much deliberation it was determined that Ms. Kagan would become a Bat Mitzvah on Friday night, May 18th 1973, where she would read from the Book of Ruth, (appropriate for the season of Shavuot) and deliver a speech analyzing the meaning of this special megillah.
And so it was.
Yet I am sure you noticed that her Bat Mitzvah was on a Friday night and not on a Shabbat morning as Bar Mitzvahs tend to be; and I am sure you took note of the fact that she was not permitted to read from the Torah, but rather from the Book of Ruth, whose reading is simply a minhag, not a law in the truest sense of the word. But I believe you have to give Rabbi Riskin some credit for trying, even though sometimes trying is not enough: Rabbi Riskin later said of that night “We crafted a lovely service, but I don’t think it satisfied her completely.”
So what is the big Halachic deal with a Bat Mitzvah anyway, surely the Torah makes no mention of the institution of a Bar Mitzvah, let alone a Bat Mitzvah, so why wouldn’t it be allowed in the first place?
Well, once we exhaust the Torah on a given subject we turn to the Rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud, and indeed there, in a Tannaitic source found in Masechet Megillah 23a it reads:
הכל עולין למנין שבעה, ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה. אבל אמרו חכמים: אשה לא תקרא בתורה, מפני כבוד צבור.
“All are allowed to be called up to read from the seven aliyot of the Torah readings, even a minor and even a woman. Although, the wise sages said: A woman is not permitted to read from the Torah because of K’vod Tzibbur, the Dignity of the Community.”
Hmmm. Interesting right? There are actually a lot of layers to this brief text.
Firstly, the Reisha, the first part clearly indicates that although you might not think a woman could be called up to read from the Torah, afilu isha, actually, she is!
Though no sooner is this said then a contradictory statement arises limiting the original. No, said the sages, a woman is indeed not allowed to read from the Torah.
Finally, the reason for this prohibition is given as “Mip’neyh K’vod Tzibbur,” for the sake of the dignity of the community.”
So now, I turn to our Supreme Court Nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and ask, Ms. Kagan, how would you decide? And I think, given her own life experience with this matter I can venture a guess as to her reply.
She would say: I would like to apply the first pattern of appropriate Halachic change to this situation and say that when the only expressed reason for the promulgation of a norm no longer obtains, the norm may be abrogated or modified. In this case the sages justified their prohibition invoking Mip’neyh K’vod Tzibbur, for the sake of the dignity of the community; and just as it is up to the Supreme Court to determine that ‘Separate but Equal’ was no longer a morally tenable justification for Southern segregation, so too our definitions of “The Dignity of our Community,” have no doubt changed. In fact, I believe it would impinge upon our Kavod, our honor, were we not to have changed this law.
Which brings us to Ms. Kagan’s second (assumed) answer, which would be to enact the second pattern of change claiming that change is necessary when “the consequences of maintaining the norm are more detrimental than the consequences of modifying the law.”
In other words, maintaining the ancient status quo would in fact be far more detrimental to our modern congregations than allowing for change. Imagine our own community without the women who attend and daven in our daily minyan, without the women who read our Torah and lead our prayers in this sanctuary, without the hundreds of young women who come before us to become Daughters of the Commandments….without this necessary change our community would be poorer indeed.
And so I return to my original claim that more important that strict constructionism, more crucial that a commitment to progressivism, more significant than an ability to empathize is the criterion that our next justice be a Bat Mitzvah. I pray that should she be confirmed, Ms. Kagan would learn from our great and wise tradition and understand that the Constitution is indeed sacred and lacking at the same time; that she would believe that the judges who preceded her and their wise precedent must be respected as well as scrutinized for modern relevance; and that she believe that while change should not be made without justification, when ample justification is found change must be made.
And finally, perhaps the most important reason why our next Supreme Court Justice should be a Bat Mitzvah, is so that an entirely new generation of young Jewish women can look up to her and say, I too can be Jewish and I too can become anything I wish to be.
Shabbat Shalom.
Well, I have a different answer. Mine is simple. I believe that the most significant criterion for choosing our next justice is that this justice should be the first Supreme Cour Justice to have had a Bat Mitzvah in an Orthodox synagogue. And yes, I recognize that this criterion excludes the 49% of the population who are male, and the 97.8% of Americans who are not Jewish; but please allow me to explain why I feel it is so important that our next Justice be a Bat Mitzvah.
Some years ago as I sat in Rabbi Joel Roth’s course entitled Senior Codes, we spent countless hours poring over some of the most important Sh’elot u’T’shuvot, Rabbinic Legal Responsa ever written. In each class we read and analyzed a Rabbinic response aimed at determining the course of action which was seen as correct in the eyes of Halacha, Jewish Law, God’s desired path for humankind in this world. As Rabbi Roth adeptly explained, when you look at these T’shuvot carefully, you see how the great rabbinic judges rendered their decisions:
-Firstly, we see that the Torah is paramount to any posek, any judge of Halacha, and it must be considered with supreme respect.
-Secondly, since the Torah is not always clear about a given subject, nor can the Torah conceive of every possible scenario under the Sun, the Oral Torah, the laws of the Mishnah and the Talmud must also be consulted with extreme reverence.
-Finally, we must always look at the power of precedent. Whether it is the concept of Minhag Avoteinu B’Yadeinu, the notion that a tradition which was strictly adhered to by our ancestors becomes like a law for us today (hence this kippah that I am wearing), or simply the decision of any posek of past centuries, these cases of precedent must inform our modern responses to a question of Jewish Law.
And from all of this Rabbi Roth explained, two patterns emerge which can justify a wholesale change in the chain of Halachic precedent:
1. If the only expressed reason for the promulgation of a norm no longer obtains, the norm may be abrogated or modified. In other words, if the reason we used to do something is truly no longer relevant, then that something can indeed be changed to match current times.
Secondly, a change can be made if it is proven that:
2. The consequences of maintaining the norm are more detrimental than the consequences of modifying the law. This is of course the justification for the famous ‘Driving T’shuvah’ which argued that the consequence of maintaining the norm, namely people sitting in their suburban homes all alone on a Shabbat morning was indeed WORSE, than changing the law and permitting some to drive to synagogue.
So what does all this have to do with a Bat Mitzvah?
This brings me to a little known hamlet, tucked away in a small corner of America known as Manhattan, birthplace of our Solicitor General, and now Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
As the New York Times reported on Thursday, Ms. Kagan and her family were members of the famous modern-Orthodox shul called Lincoln Square Synagogue. She was a star student in her Hebrew school and when she turned 12 she knew that she wanted to mark her coming of age in the eyes of a Jewish people in the same way as her male coreligionists did, with a ceremony known as the Bar or Bat Mitzvah. Her Rabbi at the time was the famous Shlomo Riskin, who remembers her passion at the time with regard to adapting the precedent of tradition to more closely match the tenor of the times. The only problem was, Rabbi Riskin had never even seen a Bat Mitzvah before, what would it look like?
After much deliberation it was determined that Ms. Kagan would become a Bat Mitzvah on Friday night, May 18th 1973, where she would read from the Book of Ruth, (appropriate for the season of Shavuot) and deliver a speech analyzing the meaning of this special megillah.
And so it was.
Yet I am sure you noticed that her Bat Mitzvah was on a Friday night and not on a Shabbat morning as Bar Mitzvahs tend to be; and I am sure you took note of the fact that she was not permitted to read from the Torah, but rather from the Book of Ruth, whose reading is simply a minhag, not a law in the truest sense of the word. But I believe you have to give Rabbi Riskin some credit for trying, even though sometimes trying is not enough: Rabbi Riskin later said of that night “We crafted a lovely service, but I don’t think it satisfied her completely.”
So what is the big Halachic deal with a Bat Mitzvah anyway, surely the Torah makes no mention of the institution of a Bar Mitzvah, let alone a Bat Mitzvah, so why wouldn’t it be allowed in the first place?
Well, once we exhaust the Torah on a given subject we turn to the Rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud, and indeed there, in a Tannaitic source found in Masechet Megillah 23a it reads:
הכל עולין למנין שבעה, ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה. אבל אמרו חכמים: אשה לא תקרא בתורה, מפני כבוד צבור.
“All are allowed to be called up to read from the seven aliyot of the Torah readings, even a minor and even a woman. Although, the wise sages said: A woman is not permitted to read from the Torah because of K’vod Tzibbur, the Dignity of the Community.”
Hmmm. Interesting right? There are actually a lot of layers to this brief text.
Firstly, the Reisha, the first part clearly indicates that although you might not think a woman could be called up to read from the Torah, afilu isha, actually, she is!
Though no sooner is this said then a contradictory statement arises limiting the original. No, said the sages, a woman is indeed not allowed to read from the Torah.
Finally, the reason for this prohibition is given as “Mip’neyh K’vod Tzibbur,” for the sake of the dignity of the community.”
So now, I turn to our Supreme Court Nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and ask, Ms. Kagan, how would you decide? And I think, given her own life experience with this matter I can venture a guess as to her reply.
She would say: I would like to apply the first pattern of appropriate Halachic change to this situation and say that when the only expressed reason for the promulgation of a norm no longer obtains, the norm may be abrogated or modified. In this case the sages justified their prohibition invoking Mip’neyh K’vod Tzibbur, for the sake of the dignity of the community; and just as it is up to the Supreme Court to determine that ‘Separate but Equal’ was no longer a morally tenable justification for Southern segregation, so too our definitions of “The Dignity of our Community,” have no doubt changed. In fact, I believe it would impinge upon our Kavod, our honor, were we not to have changed this law.
Which brings us to Ms. Kagan’s second (assumed) answer, which would be to enact the second pattern of change claiming that change is necessary when “the consequences of maintaining the norm are more detrimental than the consequences of modifying the law.”
In other words, maintaining the ancient status quo would in fact be far more detrimental to our modern congregations than allowing for change. Imagine our own community without the women who attend and daven in our daily minyan, without the women who read our Torah and lead our prayers in this sanctuary, without the hundreds of young women who come before us to become Daughters of the Commandments….without this necessary change our community would be poorer indeed.
And so I return to my original claim that more important that strict constructionism, more crucial that a commitment to progressivism, more significant than an ability to empathize is the criterion that our next justice be a Bat Mitzvah. I pray that should she be confirmed, Ms. Kagan would learn from our great and wise tradition and understand that the Constitution is indeed sacred and lacking at the same time; that she would believe that the judges who preceded her and their wise precedent must be respected as well as scrutinized for modern relevance; and that she believe that while change should not be made without justification, when ample justification is found change must be made.
And finally, perhaps the most important reason why our next Supreme Court Justice should be a Bat Mitzvah, is so that an entirely new generation of young Jewish women can look up to her and say, I too can be Jewish and I too can become anything I wish to be.
Shabbat Shalom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
