The midrash tells us that adam was created alone, to teach that whoever kills one soul kills a whole world.
In Syria over past 2 ½ years, Bashar Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of worlds
100,000 dead in the civil war
Aug 21st: 1,400 dead from gas, including 400 children
Do we have a responsibility to respond?
We have a responsibility to speak out against evil when it can be heard
Talmud: Anytime somebody else does evil and I could have stopped them, if I don’t speak out, I’m responsible
Anytime someone insults another, or even speaks lashon hara about a third party, I am obligated to speak out.
Certainly our politicians have spoken out against Assad, and he hasn’t listened
Law of Rodef: Stop the pursuer—when someone is pursuing another person’s life, I have a responsibility to intervene
Also: Torah says do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor
So yes: we have an obligation to stop a killer like Assad
It’s not just our own obligation
What about the UN, Europe? Why should we get involved when they don’t?
Pirke Avot: bemakom she-ein ish, sham tihye ish
If nobody else steps in, don’t blend in with the wall—
Have to stick your neck out,
can’t say, well they’re not doing it, why should I go out on a limb
BUT:
At what point do we say our resources are stretched too thin? Can we afford to be the world’s policeman?
Remember, federal budget is relying heavily on borrowed money—so we are spending money we don’t really have
Law of saving a life: no limit to the expense
Many people now say: halacha didn’t envision a day when we have such unlimited opportunities for saving lives
Can we afford –financially--to stop Assad?
The law of rodef—I do whatever is required to stop the pursuer
Not just a symbolic action
So what would it take to actually stop Assad, and can we afford that?
Will this just drag us into an endless, incredibly costly war like in Iraq & Afghanistan,
or Vietnam which started in 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which was supposedly for limited strikes?
Can we actually accomplish the mission and leave?
That is a question for the military experts & politicians
From a jewish ethical perspective: to the extent that we are able to, we have an obligation to act
Especially if nobody else is willing to step up
If financially we can afford to stand up to Assad
Then from a moral perspective we can’t afford not to stand up to him
May we all have the courage to stand up to evil, to inhumanity,
On a global level,
And to any cruelty we witness in our own dealings,
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Rosh Hashanah 5774: Where does this road lead?
Where Does this Road Lead?
I want to share a painful story today, one that strikes home for me. This is about something very mundane: the traffic intersection a block away, at Ocean & church. I cross it a couple times every day. I cross it with my wife, with my daughter, with congregants. As anyone knows who has tried to cross it, it is terribly dangerous: drivers turning from Church Ave are in a rush to get on the expressway, with only you standing in their way.
On June 22, I was crossing Ocean parkway with a congregant, and I asked, in an off-hand remark, does someone have to die before they make intersection safer? She said, probably.
Two days later, a local resident, Ngozi Agbim, was struck & killed crossing Ocean parkway
It turns out, this is not a new issue. Between 1995 and 2008, 4 people were killed and 36 struck. I myself saw a cyclist struck by a car, and helped him get back up; the car that struck him honked and the driver swore at the cyclist while speeding off. Brad Lander’s office received $200,000 a few years ago to work on improving the safety, but nothing happened. The various commissions and citizens groups are at a total impasse.
So why haven’t the politicians resolved it? Because all of the solutions seemed unfeasible. A pedestrian bridge would be tens of millions of dollars, so it’s not happening. Changing the traffic patterns would require traffic engineers, cooperation with different agencies, reprogramming all the lights down Ocean parkway, so it’s not happening.
Why can politicians afford to sit on their hands? Because they are not the ones risking their lives crossing Ocean parkway. They do not cross it on Shabbes with their wife, with their daughter. They are not the ones whose lives are at risk. It is an abstraction to them, and we don’t tend to act strongly on abstractions.
I raise this not to talk specifically about that intersection, but to raise a braoder question: When do we say “enough is enough”? When do we stop enduring the pain of a given situation, and decide to break through the inertia and act? Often we sit on our hands waiting for things to get better, because we feel like doing anything else seems too difficult.
The natural course of things is that we do not change our ways until the situation is absolutely intolerable. We delay until the pain of inaction outweighs the perceived difficulty of acting. It’s not that we don’t know there’s an issue, it’s that we can’t get ourselves to commit to a solution until we really have to. With alcoholics, this is called hitting rock bottom.
The problem is, with many issues, once we get to that point there may be no turning back. The destruction may be permanent.
The approach, that advocated by our tradition, is to try to see the future. No, of course we can’t see the future, but we can ask ourselves what will happen if we continue to lead our life the way we are leading it? The tradition teaches us to make decisions based not on how it feels right now, but on where the path I am walking will end up.
Pirke Avot says “who is wise? He who sees the new moon.” Imagine looking on a moonless night, and knowing the new moon will come. Knowing what’s coming down the road. Pirke Avot is saying, make your decisions based on where your decisions will take you down the road. Change before you actually hit painful, intolerable consequences.
We sometimes talk about teshuvah as repenting, getting past a particular sin. But teshuvah literally means turning—turning, in our life, toward a pathway of righteousness, of mercy. What road am I going to take? I can turn, make sure my path is going in the right direction, even if I haven’t sinned. I can change habits before they become an issue, before I suffer terrible consequences.
I want to talk about two specific areas where I see this phenomenon: the first example is on a global level, and the second is in our homes.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently measured atmospheric levels of CO2 at 400 ppm. This is a first, for recent history. The last time it was at that level was 2.5 million years ago, during the Pleistocene Epoch, when temperatures rose as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and sea levels ranged between 16-131 feet higher than current levels. If we wait until it is really intolerable, until New York gets flooded every few months, it may be too late to reverse it. Sea levels are going to rise, maybe 6 feet, maybe 13, maybe 30, depending who you ask and how far out you extend the predictions.
Why don’t we switch from a carbon based economy? Germany has done it. Meanwhile we pursue other sources of carbon emissions, poisoning our ground to dig for gas. Why don’t we change?
We don’t change because the perceived cost of change is so enormous. We don’t want to give up our cars. We don’t want to invest millions in alternative energy. We don’t want to be bothered. And because any terrible consequences are down the road, around the bend, so they don’t seem real. My car is real, I don’t want to give it up. Global food shortages and flooding are abstract and sound like the ravings of extremists, so I don’t really believe in them. I certainly don’t want to pay more taxes to pay for alternative energy sources—money is real, the environment is quaint. So we sit on our hands, live our lives as usual, and pump more carbon into the atmosphere, making it much harder to fix it down the road.
Another area I see this issue is in our relationships.
“White Men Can’t Jump” is a movie about 2 basketball hustlers, Sydney and Billy. Billy is constantly making wagers and losing money, and Gloria wants Billy to stop losing money on basketball, to stop betting money.
There is a great piece of wisdom in the movie from Sydney, Billy’s teammate and rival. Sydney tells him to “listen to the woman.” Sydney then baits him into a wager that Billy can’t slam dunk, and Billy loses all his money on that wager. He didn’t listen to the woman. In the final scene, we see Gloria rollerskating off into the sunset. Billy should have listened to her.
Typically, when couples come for marriage counseling, it is too late—they are coming on heels of years of miscommunication & resentments. They haven’t been listening to each other for years. I know of one marriage therapist who after years of being unable to help patients fix their relationships, changed strategies. Now, instead of relationship therapy, she helps them with the pain of getting divorced. Because by the time people go to therapy, it is often too late. Resentments, inattention, cruelty have been lingering, festering for years, only increasing the negative feelings.
If I am in a relationship, a friendship, a marriage, I could tolerate okay, and believe things won’t get worse. Or I can work now to make my spouse happy, to shower them with love and attention.
Can we take our spouses requests, complaints seriously? Can we address minor issues before they become major? Can we heal our relationships before they actually deteriorate?
Ezehu ashir, haroeh et hanolad
Who is rich? He who sees what’s coming, who plans a course of action based on the long term results.
May we all have the wisdom to live lives which bring about long term healing, blessing and peace,
To take seriously the dangers facing our planet, and the issues facing our homes, our relationships,
And to be brave and humble in making whatever changes we need, to creating the brightest future we can,
to write ourselves into the book of life for the upcoming year.
Lshanah tovah tchateymu
I want to share a painful story today, one that strikes home for me. This is about something very mundane: the traffic intersection a block away, at Ocean & church. I cross it a couple times every day. I cross it with my wife, with my daughter, with congregants. As anyone knows who has tried to cross it, it is terribly dangerous: drivers turning from Church Ave are in a rush to get on the expressway, with only you standing in their way.
On June 22, I was crossing Ocean parkway with a congregant, and I asked, in an off-hand remark, does someone have to die before they make intersection safer? She said, probably.
Two days later, a local resident, Ngozi Agbim, was struck & killed crossing Ocean parkway
It turns out, this is not a new issue. Between 1995 and 2008, 4 people were killed and 36 struck. I myself saw a cyclist struck by a car, and helped him get back up; the car that struck him honked and the driver swore at the cyclist while speeding off. Brad Lander’s office received $200,000 a few years ago to work on improving the safety, but nothing happened. The various commissions and citizens groups are at a total impasse.
So why haven’t the politicians resolved it? Because all of the solutions seemed unfeasible. A pedestrian bridge would be tens of millions of dollars, so it’s not happening. Changing the traffic patterns would require traffic engineers, cooperation with different agencies, reprogramming all the lights down Ocean parkway, so it’s not happening.
Why can politicians afford to sit on their hands? Because they are not the ones risking their lives crossing Ocean parkway. They do not cross it on Shabbes with their wife, with their daughter. They are not the ones whose lives are at risk. It is an abstraction to them, and we don’t tend to act strongly on abstractions.
I raise this not to talk specifically about that intersection, but to raise a braoder question: When do we say “enough is enough”? When do we stop enduring the pain of a given situation, and decide to break through the inertia and act? Often we sit on our hands waiting for things to get better, because we feel like doing anything else seems too difficult.
The natural course of things is that we do not change our ways until the situation is absolutely intolerable. We delay until the pain of inaction outweighs the perceived difficulty of acting. It’s not that we don’t know there’s an issue, it’s that we can’t get ourselves to commit to a solution until we really have to. With alcoholics, this is called hitting rock bottom.
The problem is, with many issues, once we get to that point there may be no turning back. The destruction may be permanent.
The approach, that advocated by our tradition, is to try to see the future. No, of course we can’t see the future, but we can ask ourselves what will happen if we continue to lead our life the way we are leading it? The tradition teaches us to make decisions based not on how it feels right now, but on where the path I am walking will end up.
Pirke Avot says “who is wise? He who sees the new moon.” Imagine looking on a moonless night, and knowing the new moon will come. Knowing what’s coming down the road. Pirke Avot is saying, make your decisions based on where your decisions will take you down the road. Change before you actually hit painful, intolerable consequences.
We sometimes talk about teshuvah as repenting, getting past a particular sin. But teshuvah literally means turning—turning, in our life, toward a pathway of righteousness, of mercy. What road am I going to take? I can turn, make sure my path is going in the right direction, even if I haven’t sinned. I can change habits before they become an issue, before I suffer terrible consequences.
I want to talk about two specific areas where I see this phenomenon: the first example is on a global level, and the second is in our homes.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently measured atmospheric levels of CO2 at 400 ppm. This is a first, for recent history. The last time it was at that level was 2.5 million years ago, during the Pleistocene Epoch, when temperatures rose as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and sea levels ranged between 16-131 feet higher than current levels. If we wait until it is really intolerable, until New York gets flooded every few months, it may be too late to reverse it. Sea levels are going to rise, maybe 6 feet, maybe 13, maybe 30, depending who you ask and how far out you extend the predictions.
Why don’t we switch from a carbon based economy? Germany has done it. Meanwhile we pursue other sources of carbon emissions, poisoning our ground to dig for gas. Why don’t we change?
We don’t change because the perceived cost of change is so enormous. We don’t want to give up our cars. We don’t want to invest millions in alternative energy. We don’t want to be bothered. And because any terrible consequences are down the road, around the bend, so they don’t seem real. My car is real, I don’t want to give it up. Global food shortages and flooding are abstract and sound like the ravings of extremists, so I don’t really believe in them. I certainly don’t want to pay more taxes to pay for alternative energy sources—money is real, the environment is quaint. So we sit on our hands, live our lives as usual, and pump more carbon into the atmosphere, making it much harder to fix it down the road.
Another area I see this issue is in our relationships.
“White Men Can’t Jump” is a movie about 2 basketball hustlers, Sydney and Billy. Billy is constantly making wagers and losing money, and Gloria wants Billy to stop losing money on basketball, to stop betting money.
There is a great piece of wisdom in the movie from Sydney, Billy’s teammate and rival. Sydney tells him to “listen to the woman.” Sydney then baits him into a wager that Billy can’t slam dunk, and Billy loses all his money on that wager. He didn’t listen to the woman. In the final scene, we see Gloria rollerskating off into the sunset. Billy should have listened to her.
Typically, when couples come for marriage counseling, it is too late—they are coming on heels of years of miscommunication & resentments. They haven’t been listening to each other for years. I know of one marriage therapist who after years of being unable to help patients fix their relationships, changed strategies. Now, instead of relationship therapy, she helps them with the pain of getting divorced. Because by the time people go to therapy, it is often too late. Resentments, inattention, cruelty have been lingering, festering for years, only increasing the negative feelings.
If I am in a relationship, a friendship, a marriage, I could tolerate okay, and believe things won’t get worse. Or I can work now to make my spouse happy, to shower them with love and attention.
Can we take our spouses requests, complaints seriously? Can we address minor issues before they become major? Can we heal our relationships before they actually deteriorate?
Ezehu ashir, haroeh et hanolad
Who is rich? He who sees what’s coming, who plans a course of action based on the long term results.
May we all have the wisdom to live lives which bring about long term healing, blessing and peace,
To take seriously the dangers facing our planet, and the issues facing our homes, our relationships,
And to be brave and humble in making whatever changes we need, to creating the brightest future we can,
to write ourselves into the book of life for the upcoming year.
Lshanah tovah tchateymu
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Teshuvah: from survival to meaning
Shanah Tovah!
High Holidays are just about upon us, and I am looking forward to sharing a joyous and inspiring New Year’s season together. I am looking forward to seeing everyone over the holiday season, as well as at the classes and other programs we are planning after that.
Rav Kook, the first chief rabbi of Israel, taught that teshuvah doesn’t only mean repentance, correcting faults from the past. It a trajectory of “turning” toward God, and can be done even when there is no particular sin or omission we are repenting for. Rabbi Avi Weiss has described this in terms of Zig Ziglar’s description of the human trajectory from survival to success to significance. Teshuvah is the motion from survival to success to significance.
Each of us, in our own lives, starts out trying to get by, trying to make a living. Moving out, we need to pay the rent, we need to make sure we know how to cook, at least how to boil an egg. That’s survival. Then we hopefully try to find a career which fits us well, many of us build a family, develop our lifelong friendships. This is success. After this we have room to ask the big questions: what am I accomplishing with my life? What benefit is my career, my existence, for others? This is leading a significant life, a life that makes an impact on others.
Israel, too, goes through these stages, to some extent simultaneously. Israel’s survival has always been threatened by her neighbors. In 1967 and in 1973, she was threatened and won, creating both a sense of hubris and also a realization of how precarious her existence is. Now Israel’s existence is threatened by Iran’s nuclear weapon program, and destroying Israel would make Iran the hero of the Arab world would. Survival is always an issue.
Israel has also thrived, especially recently in the high-tech boom: Israel has more companies listed on the NYSE than all countries except the US and China. Tel Aviv is a major development center for Microsoft and other high tech companies, trailing only Silicon Valley. Israel is a thriving, innovative success story.
And Israel is also an amazing country from a level of significance, what kind of values she embodies as a country. What other country, after conquering a territory (the West Bank), would let the original residents remain in their homes in peace and relative autonomy? In what other country would an airplane turn back to the gate to pick up a child for summer camp? Inbar Chomsky, a 7-year old child with cancer, missed her flight to the US for summer camp this past August, because she couldn’t find her passport. When another child on the aircraft found it in their own backpack, the airplane turned back to the gate to fetch Inbar. Where else would that happen?
Our synagogue, too, is climbing this ladder. We are surviving, with the hard work of our board, Cantor Schwartz, Menachem Kaisler, and all of our devoted volunteers. We are serving our congregants, offering daily minyan, different options on Shabbat, as well as a wonderfully fun weekly tot Shabbat. But can we become a synagogue of significance, where each of us strives not only to be served, but to serve each other? Can we be a place where our deepest Torah is lived through the way we relate to each other? This is the challenge of teshuvah.
I am looking forward to sharing a joyous and inspirational holiday season with you, and hope you take advantage of all the things we are offering throughout the upcoming year.
High Holiday Observances
Tashlich—at some point during the 10 days, we go to a body of water and symbolically cast in our sins. Bread is not so healthy to geese, so we should probably do it symbolically or with very small amounts. We will be doing Tashlich together on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, at the corner of Prospect park.
Kappores—it is customary to symbolically place one’s sins on a chicken, shecht it, and then donate it to a poor person. Kappores can also be done onto money and given to tzedakah.
Teshuvah—We should use this time to take stock of our personal habits, and identify ways we can improve. We should also try to reach out to people we may have hurt or offended, or who hurt us, or who just drifted away, to repair our relationships. Remember, according to the Ramchal, even such a reaction as not calling somebody because of something in the past is considered a forbidden grudge!
Selichot—we will say special selichot prayers each morning before shacharit.
Tzedakah—it is good to give extra tzedakah during this time. There is a custom to collect tzedakah right at the beginning of Kol Nidre, and I encourage you to bring either cash to deposit in the pushke on your way in.
When Yontiff and Shabbat are next to each other
Sukkot is right before Shabbat this year, which adds some complexity to the observance. We are allowed to cook on yontiff, but technically we should prepare for Shabbat before yontiff. The solution is to prepare an eruv tavshilin, a small amount of cooked food (e.g. an egg and piece of bread) before yontiff. This food is for Shabbat, and shows that we started preparing for Shabbat before yontiff.
Candles--since we are allowed to transfer fire on yontiff but not on Shabbat, and we cannot light fire, we have a 24-hour candle burning during yontiff. On the night starting the 2nd day of yontiff, hadlakat nerot is later to ensure that it is truly the 2nd day. This is done by lighting a match from the existing candle, and lighting the yontiff candles (and a new 24-hour candle) from the existing flame. On Friday evening, however, hadlakat nerot is early to insure that we don’t light fire on Shabbat.
Sukkot Observance
It is a mitzvah to eat 14 meals in the Sukkah—in other words, at least lunch & dinner each day of the week. The more time we spend in it (learning, sleeping, etc.) the better. We also have a mitzvah to bensch lulav each day, so I strongly encourage you to participate in Mr. Kaisler’s lulav/etrog sale.
Sukkot are relatively easy to build; I recommend wood (using a power drill) or PVC (which just snaps together). The wall can be made of anything. The top needs to be made of natural material; cornstalks are ideal. If you do not have anywhere to build a sukkah, feel free to use our own lovely sukkah here at FJC; let me know when you will need it so we can be sure the building is open.
High Holidays are just about upon us, and I am looking forward to sharing a joyous and inspiring New Year’s season together. I am looking forward to seeing everyone over the holiday season, as well as at the classes and other programs we are planning after that.
Rav Kook, the first chief rabbi of Israel, taught that teshuvah doesn’t only mean repentance, correcting faults from the past. It a trajectory of “turning” toward God, and can be done even when there is no particular sin or omission we are repenting for. Rabbi Avi Weiss has described this in terms of Zig Ziglar’s description of the human trajectory from survival to success to significance. Teshuvah is the motion from survival to success to significance.
Each of us, in our own lives, starts out trying to get by, trying to make a living. Moving out, we need to pay the rent, we need to make sure we know how to cook, at least how to boil an egg. That’s survival. Then we hopefully try to find a career which fits us well, many of us build a family, develop our lifelong friendships. This is success. After this we have room to ask the big questions: what am I accomplishing with my life? What benefit is my career, my existence, for others? This is leading a significant life, a life that makes an impact on others.
Israel, too, goes through these stages, to some extent simultaneously. Israel’s survival has always been threatened by her neighbors. In 1967 and in 1973, she was threatened and won, creating both a sense of hubris and also a realization of how precarious her existence is. Now Israel’s existence is threatened by Iran’s nuclear weapon program, and destroying Israel would make Iran the hero of the Arab world would. Survival is always an issue.
Israel has also thrived, especially recently in the high-tech boom: Israel has more companies listed on the NYSE than all countries except the US and China. Tel Aviv is a major development center for Microsoft and other high tech companies, trailing only Silicon Valley. Israel is a thriving, innovative success story.
And Israel is also an amazing country from a level of significance, what kind of values she embodies as a country. What other country, after conquering a territory (the West Bank), would let the original residents remain in their homes in peace and relative autonomy? In what other country would an airplane turn back to the gate to pick up a child for summer camp? Inbar Chomsky, a 7-year old child with cancer, missed her flight to the US for summer camp this past August, because she couldn’t find her passport. When another child on the aircraft found it in their own backpack, the airplane turned back to the gate to fetch Inbar. Where else would that happen?
Our synagogue, too, is climbing this ladder. We are surviving, with the hard work of our board, Cantor Schwartz, Menachem Kaisler, and all of our devoted volunteers. We are serving our congregants, offering daily minyan, different options on Shabbat, as well as a wonderfully fun weekly tot Shabbat. But can we become a synagogue of significance, where each of us strives not only to be served, but to serve each other? Can we be a place where our deepest Torah is lived through the way we relate to each other? This is the challenge of teshuvah.
I am looking forward to sharing a joyous and inspirational holiday season with you, and hope you take advantage of all the things we are offering throughout the upcoming year.
High Holiday Observances
Tashlich—at some point during the 10 days, we go to a body of water and symbolically cast in our sins. Bread is not so healthy to geese, so we should probably do it symbolically or with very small amounts. We will be doing Tashlich together on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, at the corner of Prospect park.
Kappores—it is customary to symbolically place one’s sins on a chicken, shecht it, and then donate it to a poor person. Kappores can also be done onto money and given to tzedakah.
Teshuvah—We should use this time to take stock of our personal habits, and identify ways we can improve. We should also try to reach out to people we may have hurt or offended, or who hurt us, or who just drifted away, to repair our relationships. Remember, according to the Ramchal, even such a reaction as not calling somebody because of something in the past is considered a forbidden grudge!
Selichot—we will say special selichot prayers each morning before shacharit.
Tzedakah—it is good to give extra tzedakah during this time. There is a custom to collect tzedakah right at the beginning of Kol Nidre, and I encourage you to bring either cash to deposit in the pushke on your way in.
When Yontiff and Shabbat are next to each other
Sukkot is right before Shabbat this year, which adds some complexity to the observance. We are allowed to cook on yontiff, but technically we should prepare for Shabbat before yontiff. The solution is to prepare an eruv tavshilin, a small amount of cooked food (e.g. an egg and piece of bread) before yontiff. This food is for Shabbat, and shows that we started preparing for Shabbat before yontiff.
Candles--since we are allowed to transfer fire on yontiff but not on Shabbat, and we cannot light fire, we have a 24-hour candle burning during yontiff. On the night starting the 2nd day of yontiff, hadlakat nerot is later to ensure that it is truly the 2nd day. This is done by lighting a match from the existing candle, and lighting the yontiff candles (and a new 24-hour candle) from the existing flame. On Friday evening, however, hadlakat nerot is early to insure that we don’t light fire on Shabbat.
Sukkot Observance
It is a mitzvah to eat 14 meals in the Sukkah—in other words, at least lunch & dinner each day of the week. The more time we spend in it (learning, sleeping, etc.) the better. We also have a mitzvah to bensch lulav each day, so I strongly encourage you to participate in Mr. Kaisler’s lulav/etrog sale.
Sukkot are relatively easy to build; I recommend wood (using a power drill) or PVC (which just snaps together). The wall can be made of anything. The top needs to be made of natural material; cornstalks are ideal. If you do not have anywhere to build a sukkah, feel free to use our own lovely sukkah here at FJC; let me know when you will need it so we can be sure the building is open.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Judaism and the "right to stand your ground"
The George Zimmerman verdict is
Scary: opens door to vigilantes,
to becoming the wild west all over.
Whether or not jury was right there’s no just result
“right to stand your ground”
If you think about it, any time 2 people believe they have a "right to stand their ground," you end up with escalating conflict. When I imagine what happened that night (and I admit this is my own imaginative reconstruction), I imagine 2 people each thinking they are just standing their ground. Zimmerman, believing he had a right to protect his community against someone he thought seemed suspicious, even if only because of the color of his skin and his clothing style. And Martin, believing he had a right to protect himself against someone who seemed to be stalking him
When 2 people stand their ground, you have a stand off where only 1 person can win
There’s always a loser,
Since nobody wants to lose, so each person raises the stakes--there is a mutual escalation.
In this case, the stakes were raised so high that at least according to zimmerman’s testimony, only 1 of them would come out alive
Nobody felt an obligation to stand down, to de-escalate,
to walk away, which was what the dispatcher had told Zimmerman to do
It was a tragic inability to de-escalate
This is the problem with the whole attitude of "standing your ground."
“Standing your ground” is not a jewish value
Talmud: Jerusalem destroyed because people insisted on their legal rights—
let’s say shimon owed rubin 10 zuz, but shimon only had 9
so rubin insisted on the full 10 zuz
Rubin wouldn’t compromise.
Rubin was right halachically—but he was wrong because he wouldn’t compromise
And for this Jerusalem was destroyed
In jewish court proceedings, too, the court is instructed to try to negotiate a settlement first
And only then to adjudicate
The whole idea of a settlement is that it’s not necessarily what the halacha calls for
It’s about making peace between the two sides
Because the world survives through peace, not through who’s wight or wrong
Any of us who are married or have been know this
How long would a marriage survive if spouses stood their ground
If spouses always insisted on having their way?
Here at FJC, we are trying to build a spiritual community
It’s a lot like a mixed marriage—we’ve got traditionalist and progressive jews
Which creates a beautiful challenge
the rules we davven by, whether we have a mechitza or not,
Are far less important than how we treat each other,
Whether we care for each other, and treat each other respectfully.
Any win-lose struggle is really a lose-lose struggle
Any time we have a conflict and one sides wins, really both sides lose.
May we all learn
To be more gentle, more understanding, and willing to always seek compromise, to find solutions by which everyone comes out feeling good about what we are building together.
Scary: opens door to vigilantes,
to becoming the wild west all over.
Whether or not jury was right there’s no just result
“right to stand your ground”
If you think about it, any time 2 people believe they have a "right to stand their ground," you end up with escalating conflict. When I imagine what happened that night (and I admit this is my own imaginative reconstruction), I imagine 2 people each thinking they are just standing their ground. Zimmerman, believing he had a right to protect his community against someone he thought seemed suspicious, even if only because of the color of his skin and his clothing style. And Martin, believing he had a right to protect himself against someone who seemed to be stalking him
When 2 people stand their ground, you have a stand off where only 1 person can win
There’s always a loser,
Since nobody wants to lose, so each person raises the stakes--there is a mutual escalation.
In this case, the stakes were raised so high that at least according to zimmerman’s testimony, only 1 of them would come out alive
Nobody felt an obligation to stand down, to de-escalate,
to walk away, which was what the dispatcher had told Zimmerman to do
It was a tragic inability to de-escalate
This is the problem with the whole attitude of "standing your ground."
“Standing your ground” is not a jewish value
Talmud: Jerusalem destroyed because people insisted on their legal rights—
let’s say shimon owed rubin 10 zuz, but shimon only had 9
so rubin insisted on the full 10 zuz
Rubin wouldn’t compromise.
Rubin was right halachically—but he was wrong because he wouldn’t compromise
And for this Jerusalem was destroyed
In jewish court proceedings, too, the court is instructed to try to negotiate a settlement first
And only then to adjudicate
The whole idea of a settlement is that it’s not necessarily what the halacha calls for
It’s about making peace between the two sides
Because the world survives through peace, not through who’s wight or wrong
Any of us who are married or have been know this
How long would a marriage survive if spouses stood their ground
If spouses always insisted on having their way?
Here at FJC, we are trying to build a spiritual community
It’s a lot like a mixed marriage—we’ve got traditionalist and progressive jews
Which creates a beautiful challenge
the rules we davven by, whether we have a mechitza or not,
Are far less important than how we treat each other,
Whether we care for each other, and treat each other respectfully.
Any win-lose struggle is really a lose-lose struggle
Any time we have a conflict and one sides wins, really both sides lose.
May we all learn
To be more gentle, more understanding, and willing to always seek compromise, to find solutions by which everyone comes out feeling good about what we are building together.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Zimmerman's acquittal in the eyes of the Talmud
I was shocked by outcome of Zimmerman trial
And signed petitions to eric holder to prosecute Zimmerman for civil rights violation
Shocking that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin for being black in florida
Stalked him in his car, somehow provoked him,
And got away with killing him
It is a scary porecedent.
One wonders: does this open the door to a wild west mentality?
If someone stalks me, and I defend myself, can they then shoot me and claim self defense?
But I want to discuss a jewish perspective on the verdict per se
Even if Zimmerman’s actions were horrible
Which they were
Was the jury right to acquit, from a jewish perspective?
Was justice served?
In its discussion of court procedures for capital crimes, the Talmud institutes very careful procedures to make sure there is absolute proof of the crime. The Torah requires two witnesses, and the Talmud require that they both warn the criminal and unambiguously witness the act.
Sanh 37b:
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Shatah said: May I never see comfort6 if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing, I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I!7 But what can I do, since thy blood [i.e., life] does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, At the mouth of two witnesses etc., shall he that is to die be put to death?8 May he who knows one's thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit him [the murderer] so that he died.
The court procedure was so biased against false conviction that
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states: [Executing more than] one person in 70 years [would be considered a murderous court]. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: “If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed.” [Makkot 1:10]
To which of course R Shimon b Gamliel responds:
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel responds, “they would have been increasing the murderers in Israel.”
But the halacha is that we are careful about this procedure, because it is better to let someone go than to punish someone who’s innocent
In fact, the judges on a bet din are instructed to look for reasons to acquit.
Pesachim 12a:—cannot convict person if there’s any doubt they are equivalent
Cites Num 35:25: “the congregation shall deliver”
Rashi: we look for a reason to acquit
From a utilitarian perspective: it’s better to convict people even if you’re not 100% sure
This is Shimon ben Gamliel’s argument:
We would be a safer society if courts could convict people like Zimmerman
It would send the message: you can’t be a vigilante
But from a moral perspective, our own moral integrity as a society comes first
The ends don’t justify the means
Courts need to make sure they don’t punish innocent people
Or they themselves are acting immorally
our own moral integrity limits what we can do to protect public safety
The Zimmerman trial shows our society has problems
The possibility that someone could think it’s okay to assault and kill someone for appearing suspicious, based on racial stereotypes
That we have vigilantes driving around on town watch acting without regard for the law
But it also shows our justice system can work
People can be acquitted if there’s just a possibility of being innocent
On a personal level, when we are judging others’ motives
And tempted to condemn them, to judge them negatively,
We should always look for a tzad zechut, a way to view their actions positively
And through this, preserve peace in our communities and families.
And signed petitions to eric holder to prosecute Zimmerman for civil rights violation
Shocking that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin for being black in florida
Stalked him in his car, somehow provoked him,
And got away with killing him
It is a scary porecedent.
One wonders: does this open the door to a wild west mentality?
If someone stalks me, and I defend myself, can they then shoot me and claim self defense?
But I want to discuss a jewish perspective on the verdict per se
Even if Zimmerman’s actions were horrible
Which they were
Was the jury right to acquit, from a jewish perspective?
Was justice served?
In its discussion of court procedures for capital crimes, the Talmud institutes very careful procedures to make sure there is absolute proof of the crime. The Torah requires two witnesses, and the Talmud require that they both warn the criminal and unambiguously witness the act.
Sanh 37b:
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Shatah said: May I never see comfort6 if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing, I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I!7 But what can I do, since thy blood [i.e., life] does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, At the mouth of two witnesses etc., shall he that is to die be put to death?8 May he who knows one's thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit him [the murderer] so that he died.
The court procedure was so biased against false conviction that
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states: [Executing more than] one person in 70 years [would be considered a murderous court]. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: “If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed.” [Makkot 1:10]
To which of course R Shimon b Gamliel responds:
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel responds, “they would have been increasing the murderers in Israel.”
But the halacha is that we are careful about this procedure, because it is better to let someone go than to punish someone who’s innocent
In fact, the judges on a bet din are instructed to look for reasons to acquit.
Pesachim 12a:—cannot convict person if there’s any doubt they are equivalent
Cites Num 35:25: “the congregation shall deliver”
Rashi: we look for a reason to acquit
From a utilitarian perspective: it’s better to convict people even if you’re not 100% sure
This is Shimon ben Gamliel’s argument:
We would be a safer society if courts could convict people like Zimmerman
It would send the message: you can’t be a vigilante
But from a moral perspective, our own moral integrity as a society comes first
The ends don’t justify the means
Courts need to make sure they don’t punish innocent people
Or they themselves are acting immorally
our own moral integrity limits what we can do to protect public safety
The Zimmerman trial shows our society has problems
The possibility that someone could think it’s okay to assault and kill someone for appearing suspicious, based on racial stereotypes
That we have vigilantes driving around on town watch acting without regard for the law
But it also shows our justice system can work
People can be acquitted if there’s just a possibility of being innocent
On a personal level, when we are judging others’ motives
And tempted to condemn them, to judge them negatively,
We should always look for a tzad zechut, a way to view their actions positively
And through this, preserve peace in our communities and families.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Imagine that you are trying to davven, on a beautiful sunny day in Jerusalem, singing the hallel with your full heart. Add to the scene that you are standing next to a restroom and surrounded by ultraorthodox Jews blowing whistles, throwing eggs at you, and calling you "zonah" (whore), "naziyah" (nazi) and "pritzit" (lascivious), and a blaring PA system trying to drown out your voice. I was terribly saddened by what the Women of the Wall went through this month, in their fight to allow pluralistic worship at the kotel, our peoples’ holiest site. Surrounded by crowds of yelling, whistling ultraorthodox Jews, kept in the back of the plaza by the bathrooms by the police.
Isaiah (56:7) says “my house shall be a house of prayer for all people.” That house is the Temple. What will it look like, when Indians and Native Americans and Christians and Muslims come? What prayer will be said there—one prayer, or a beautiful rainbow of prayers and voices, representing the multiplicity of beautiful human approaches to spirituality? Will the third Temple be an ultraorthodox shtibl, or will it be a mansion, allowing for all ethnicities, allowing for chanting and yoga, allowing for people who call God “Allah” or “Brahman” or “Love”?
It is sad that even segments of the Jewish people are unable to access our holiest site. The women of the wall represent most of the Jewish people, since orthodoxy is really a minority worldwide and a majority in Israel only because they are state funded. But this loud minority is keeping the wall hostage, preventing other Jews from davenning there.
This is particularly apropos in this period before Tisha B’Av, a holiday that marks the destruction of the Second Temple due to sinat hinam, causeless hatred among Jews. When one Jews tries to prevent another Jew from davenning, it is a hateful act, it is sinat hinam. When one Jew calls another Jew’s sincere spiritual expression “childish provocation,” as did Hillel Halkin, it is stupidity, judgmentalism, and sinat hinam.
I pray for the day when people will no longer judge each other’s spirituality, but can celebrate each other. I pray for the day when all peoples’ sincere attempts to bring kedusha into the world are honored and celebrated. I pray for the day when the kotel, the western wall, is truly liberated, is truly a house of prayer for all of us. And until that day, “over these I weep.”
Isaiah (56:7) says “my house shall be a house of prayer for all people.” That house is the Temple. What will it look like, when Indians and Native Americans and Christians and Muslims come? What prayer will be said there—one prayer, or a beautiful rainbow of prayers and voices, representing the multiplicity of beautiful human approaches to spirituality? Will the third Temple be an ultraorthodox shtibl, or will it be a mansion, allowing for all ethnicities, allowing for chanting and yoga, allowing for people who call God “Allah” or “Brahman” or “Love”?
It is sad that even segments of the Jewish people are unable to access our holiest site. The women of the wall represent most of the Jewish people, since orthodoxy is really a minority worldwide and a majority in Israel only because they are state funded. But this loud minority is keeping the wall hostage, preventing other Jews from davenning there.
This is particularly apropos in this period before Tisha B’Av, a holiday that marks the destruction of the Second Temple due to sinat hinam, causeless hatred among Jews. When one Jews tries to prevent another Jew from davenning, it is a hateful act, it is sinat hinam. When one Jew calls another Jew’s sincere spiritual expression “childish provocation,” as did Hillel Halkin, it is stupidity, judgmentalism, and sinat hinam.
I pray for the day when people will no longer judge each other’s spirituality, but can celebrate each other. I pray for the day when all peoples’ sincere attempts to bring kedusha into the world are honored and celebrated. I pray for the day when the kotel, the western wall, is truly liberated, is truly a house of prayer for all of us. And until that day, “over these I weep.”
Friday, June 28, 2013
Acting on Impluse
In the beginning of the Parsha, Pinhas is rewarded with “briti shalom”, the covenant of peace.
It is his reward for actions in previous parsha
Israelites were seduced by idolatrous women at Bal peor
Zimri and Cosbi had intercourse in public
People were stunned, couldn’t think straight
Pinhas ran his spear through both of them in the act
Term for Pinhas in Hebrew: kenai—zealot
Someone who throws themselves in, mindlessly
Jumping in feet first, acting on blind impulse
Not thinking about the risk—
Zimri could have legitimately killed him in self defense
Most of us here aren’t zealots in that sense
But there is the temptation to be impulsive in our speech
To say exactly what I think, the moment I think it
I let you know exactly what kind of a person you are.
How horrible a thing you just did
Problem with Zealotry:
Too often bad motives
immaturity, impulsivity,
the thrill of controversy, self-promotion,
or advancing some sort of personal agenda.
Also: not very effective to improve people around you
If you jump on people who are wrong
Even if you’re right, they don’t want to listen
Pinhas’ reward is the covenant of peace—briti shalom
It’s an odd reward: he was hardly peaceful!
The Ntziv, Rav Naftali Tzvi Berlin, says it was a protection from recrimination
So people should know his motives were pure
Because all too often, when people are zealous,
Their motives are not pure
The truth is, we never fully admit our own motives, even to ourselves
And all too often when we act impulsively,
Or when we speak impulsively,
It’s really out of selfishness, vindictiveness,
The thrill of attack
Or other less than stellar motive
So in general we need to be more like aaron, a little more peaceful
When aaron would hear someone sinned
He wouldn’t attack them
He would befriend them
And the person would be so embarrassed to sin, because what would aaron think of that
When we see something we don’t like, and we are tempted to attack,
To jump in and criticize,
We need to act in a way that embodies brit, sacred relationship,
We need to approach all of our fellow humans
Even in the moments where they are doing something we can’t stand
with patience, love and peace
It is his reward for actions in previous parsha
Israelites were seduced by idolatrous women at Bal peor
Zimri and Cosbi had intercourse in public
People were stunned, couldn’t think straight
Pinhas ran his spear through both of them in the act
Term for Pinhas in Hebrew: kenai—zealot
Someone who throws themselves in, mindlessly
Jumping in feet first, acting on blind impulse
Not thinking about the risk—
Zimri could have legitimately killed him in self defense
Most of us here aren’t zealots in that sense
But there is the temptation to be impulsive in our speech
To say exactly what I think, the moment I think it
I let you know exactly what kind of a person you are.
How horrible a thing you just did
Problem with Zealotry:
Too often bad motives
immaturity, impulsivity,
the thrill of controversy, self-promotion,
or advancing some sort of personal agenda.
Also: not very effective to improve people around you
If you jump on people who are wrong
Even if you’re right, they don’t want to listen
Pinhas’ reward is the covenant of peace—briti shalom
It’s an odd reward: he was hardly peaceful!
The Ntziv, Rav Naftali Tzvi Berlin, says it was a protection from recrimination
So people should know his motives were pure
Because all too often, when people are zealous,
Their motives are not pure
The truth is, we never fully admit our own motives, even to ourselves
And all too often when we act impulsively,
Or when we speak impulsively,
It’s really out of selfishness, vindictiveness,
The thrill of attack
Or other less than stellar motive
So in general we need to be more like aaron, a little more peaceful
When aaron would hear someone sinned
He wouldn’t attack them
He would befriend them
And the person would be so embarrassed to sin, because what would aaron think of that
When we see something we don’t like, and we are tempted to attack,
To jump in and criticize,
We need to act in a way that embodies brit, sacred relationship,
We need to approach all of our fellow humans
Even in the moments where they are doing something we can’t stand
with patience, love and peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)