Microsoft Word – RH2024
Last Rosh Hashanah -those of us in this very room were we passed so deeply meaningful and highly spiritual services- who amongst us could have imagined the challenges of this past year: the slaughter of October 7th; the long and devasta ng war in Gaza; the slew of missiles raining from the North that startedthedaya$er;thecon nuedandheart-wrenchingplightofthehostages;thelossoffriendsand allies;thefrac ouspolariza onwithintheJewishcommunity;orseeingthespectacularriseworldwide inan semi sm,inan -Zionism-simplyjew-hatred-becomingcommonplace,eveninourmosttrusted ins tu ons.
All of this on top of the many issues we con nue to need to work on globally, from hunger to homelessness to climate change. Hope, in such circumstances, feels at best elusive; and in our most cynical moments, it feels downright naïve.
Kohelet (be/er known in English as Ecclesiastes), says in chapter three, “To everything there is a season, and a me for every experience under the heavens”. Life entails a spectrum of experiences and events, challenges, frustra ons but also delights and rewards. And Kohelet is trying to tell us that there is a me for every one of them. That we should understand that in different moments of our lives, we will be experiencing them. They will engage us, they will confront us, provoke us, delight us even defy us – and they will catch us usually wholly and u/erly unprepared.
One of the tragedies of life is that we are never really prepared for what is in front of us, and it is like we are always playing catch up. That reality fills us with angst, and it fills us with worry. It is needling us by saying: are we doing everything we need to do?
And Kohelet con nues: “there is a me for birthing and a me for dying; a me for plan ng and a me to uproot that which has been planted”; Kohelet even says, “there is also a me to kill”. Nevertheless, our wise sage gently reminds us that there must be also “a me to heal”.
In verse eight, we learn that there even is “a me to love”, nonetheless, there is also a “ me to hate”. That too is a part of our world, and at mes, it can also be an appropriate response. Kohelet finishes by teaching us that there is “a me for war and that there is a me for peace”.
Inthefaceofthehorrors,theimmensesadnessandthedevasta onofthispastyear;thesufferingthat seems to know no bounds, I find it difficult to even fathom that we are here once again in this place, in this room, at the threshold of a New Year. But, as with life itself, like a mighty stream of water flowing towards the sea, the Jewish year inevitably advances along. Time is inescapably advancing to the me of tomorrow.
I believe that the fundamental challenge that each one of us is struggling with is: “what is the me of tomorrow and how is it different from the me of today”?
It is a challenge because we could stay where we are, and somehow, we might feel comfortable with that status quo. A$er all, it has its rules and we know how to operate within it. I know what I am supposed to do and how I suppose feel. But tomorrow is coming, and “who do we want to be tomorrow” must be addressed.
For the Jewish people right now, we are in a me of killing (not murder – that is different). We are killing and we are being killed. We are in a me of war. I wish there wasn’t such a me. But we don’t always gettochooseourcircumstance.Some mes,otherschoosethemomentforus.
So how do we move forward to a me of healing? How do we move to a me of peace? A$er all, Kohelet tells us that there has to be such a me.
Warbydefini on,withitsfearanditstrauma,directsone’svisioninwardtowardsoneself.Onehasgreat difficulty seeing others. You have great difficulty being compassionate towards others. The truth is that one’s heart only has just so much room in it.
When you look into the horizon and your frightened and trauma zed, it is even morally required for you to look at yourself. Fear shapes you, and between us, it should. Because if it doesn’t and you don’t listen to your fear -especially for those who live in the Middle East- you die. You can’t survive unless you have a finely tuned ear to danger and fear.
So how do we balance it? Well life, my friends, is never really balanced. Maybe we would like to be; maybe it ought to be, but we never really can. Thinking in universal categories? Come on, the reality is we worry ins nc vely for our family first. Will our child come home safe? Will my husband or my wife come home? Will I make it home? Will we be, okay?
Last October, I stood at the freshly dug grave, in Raanana, of a community member’s daughter who did not come home from an evening out dancing with her friends at the Nova fes val. Instead, she was carried back in a casket. That is terrifying and uncomprehensible!
Mar n Buber once taught that the world is not comprehensible, but nevertheless, it is embraceable: through the embracing of one of its beings. By seeing that person as an end and not as a means. His philosophyofdialoguemakesadis nc onbetweenan“I-itrela onship”andan“I-Thourela onship”. An “I-Thou rela onship” relates to someone as subject, with all one’s heart and mind. The “I-It encounter” is the opposite, it is where we relate to someone as an object, as simply a means to an end.
When we walk through the world, we are asked to see others as an end of themselves. As the Bible states in Genesis (1:27), we are all created in the image of God. For Judaism, you are an end and not a means. When Ionly see someone’s life as simply ame anstomyend, then Iamnottre ang others with themoralsensi vityrequired.AccordingtoBuber,Iamnotlivinguptomymoralstandards.
Terrorists, on the other hand, do not see us as an end, but only as a means. In fact, they don’t even see us as humans. And the reality is that everyone is a means to someone’s ideological end. Religion, in general, also has this same tempta on, some mes even succumbing to it. It offers this grand vision … end of days, seduc ve purposes or some such lo$y goal — and the details, over me, become less and less important as to how we get there. But those details, they are us. They are people.
But also, when you are in war, it is not ideology that animates; it is survival. And survival trumps. And to really believe the other person is, as in Buber’s thoughts, a “Thou”; The other is an end, a subject, especially the other who one meets on the ba/lefield, especially the one who feels that “yes, you should be dead”. What is the morality of this universe? While it is hard to fully appreciate Buber’s thoughts. It is even harder to try and implement such philosophy in that context.
2
Rosh Hashanah 5785
I certainly don’t feel that Israeli society has failed, nor do I at all think that the Israeli army has failed us, butIdobelievethatasJewswehavetoaskourselvesaques ontonight:Whodowewanttobe?
All human beings underachieve, that is the nature of the human condi on. And when we do achieve our aspira ons, it is usually because we set our aspira ons too low. Don’t get me wrong, I am not judging… there is no judgment tonight – and if there is, it is God’s business not mine! I am asking a serious ques on of self-reflec on in a me of war: “where is it that we are not all that we ought to be?”
How do we fill a moral void that, which by defini on, has to be created in a me of killing and in a me of war. How do we get from there to the me of tomorrow.
As a rabbi and an educator -and simply as another spiritual seeker such as you- I am haunted by that ques on. How do we open up our souls to tomorrow, to a me not of war?
The Mishnaic sage Hillel once gave a classic answer to a convert who had asked him, “what is the essence of Judaism?” “What principles must I follow?” Hillel answered, “that which is hateful to you, do not do to others! That is the whole Torah the rest is commentary, now go study!” (TB Shabbat 31a).
ַדּ ֲע ָל ְס ֵני ְל ַח ְב ָר “ ,While that is the usual transla on of his response, what he actually said in Aramaic is Literally, “what is hateful to you, do not do to your ‘haver’”, do not do to your “friend”. Hillel .” ָלא ַתּ ֲע ֵביד isnotexpressingMar nBuber’sphilosophyonsomeuniversalmorality,ratherheissayingdon’ttreat your “haver” as you wouldn’t want to be treated.
So, the real ques on now is, who is your “haver?“ Who do you include? Religion, by defini on, o$en shrinksthedefini onof“haver”toanotherfollowerofthatreligion.Poli csdoesthesamebydefining the“haver”asonewhosharesyourpoli calopinions.Historyhasliterallyseenriversofbloodflowby how we define who is in the sphere of loyalty; who is my “haver”, who is my friend? Everybody does it; We create through families, through tribes, ethnic groups, na ons – even spor ng clubs. We create circles of loyalty where someone is in or another is out.
At least in theory religions can, certainly Judaism does, contain within its ideas that these circles of loyaltymayalsobetranscended.A$erallourtradi ondoesteach,asIstatedearlier,thatallpeopleare created in the image of God (Gn 1:27), but it even goes on to prescribe that one should “love the stranger” (Dt 10:19), etc.
So, while it is natural, and doubtlessly even correct morally, in a me of war -in a me of fear- to shrink whoisour“haver”,tonightIwantustoconsiderthefuture.Howdoweexpandtheideaofthedefini on ofwhoisour“haver”inourworld?BecausesimplywallowingindespairisnotaJewishplanofac on!
I don’t mean to ask this as a minority living in France, or even the diaspora. How do we expand our defini onofwhoisa“haver”?Asminori es,wedoitallthe me–wedoitbecauseitisinourown self-interest to do so. We want to look good to the powerful and majority. Rather, I am asking this ques onasourmeansofreclaimingourJudaismthroughanauthen cvoicethatsaysthatweoughtto live in a world where we can expand as much as possible, who is our “haver”, without distor ng the very idea we wish to define.
Donniel Hartman suggests in his book, “Who are the Jews and Who Can We Become” that there are three possible paths to expanding our “haver”.
1) we must reinforce ourselves and our fellow seekers to commit to the primacy of the ethical. 2) We should reconsider our posi on towards our cri cs, 3) and finally, we should embrace the no on of utopia.
Let me explain. Take the primacy of the ethical: Remember Hillel talking to the convert. He doesn’t say to him, pray to God or observe shabbat, or even that you should keep kosher. Rather, he says, “what is hateful to you, do not do to your ‘haver’”. He says that the way you treat other human beings is the essence of our Tradi on. That the ethical is what defines us as a Jew. It opens our hearts to the disadvantage.
Acommunitywhichsaysthatitdefinesitselfbydoinggoodintheworld,byprac cingandcaringabout Tikkun Olam; that is powerful. It is saying that maybe my rituals are not all that rich, and perhaps my knowledge of texts, to say the least, is wan ng, but nevertheless, I want to be a force for good in the world. That can change you!
Furthermore,inJewishtradi on,theethicalisin matelyconnectedtotheTalmudicconceptof“lifnim mishurathadin”,themoralobliga ontogobeyondtherequirementsofthelaw.Accordingtotherabbis of the Talmud, the first Temple, destroyed by the Assyrians in 586 b.c.e., was due to our ancestors not following the law. They then went on to say that the second Temple destroyed in 70 of the common era by the Romans was because WE DID follow the law – only this me, we just didn’t go beyond its minimumrequirements!Inessencethetradi onisteachingfromthis,don’tbeoverlylawerly(nothing against our lawyer friends present). God gives only the minimum to us, so Judaism is saying, now be a mensch – be a Jew. (TB Bava Metzia 30b)
We have to place our tradi on and its ethical concerns at the center of our Jewish being. Teach this moral discourse to yourself and don’t be frighten of this powerful idea, worrying that it could put you in danger. Because in a me, when a part of our people are figh ng a war of self-defense, we ARE ac ng out of moral principal! Nevertheless, the ethical must be the founda onal stone of our Jewish tomorrow.
If we truly want to expand our defini on of who is a “haver”, we also should reconsider our posi on towardsourcri cs.Insteadofdismissingthemquicklyasautoma callybeingan semi c,considerthat they might be sensi ve to things that we simply don’t see. When we open our soul to the outside, to someone who tells you, that you are not being what you ought to be. When we are underachieving … we need to listen to those voices. As long as they are doing so as loving cri cs, as lovers of Zion… let them aggravate away, otherwise we are robbing ourselves of an opportunity to perhaps fill a moral void. Remember, the cri c is not necessarily right. But you need to be aware of their concerns. We need to open up our soul to their voice, if we want to go towards peace and healing.
Finally, we need to reclaim the utopian visions our tradi on carries. That messianic vision of what the world can be.
Between us, I’ll be the first to admit my misgivings in this domain, as my reading of history has taught me that more o$en than not, messianic visions tend to distance us from, rather move us closer to peace. A$er all, if we have to wait un l the lion lies down with the lamb, or bide one’s me for when they will beat spears into plowshares, we are more likely to say, since we can’t put it into prac ce, I’ll just give up. Rather than being empowering, it makes us a cynical. And instead of spears being beaten, we let hope get beaten out of us.
But how can we get to tomorrow without talking about tomorrow? How do we talk about tomorrow when we have become the “people of the status quo?” How is it helpful when we become experts in why everything won’t work and will fail.
The art of utopian thinking (an imaginary place) is to realize and accept that it doesn’t exist in a physical place; rather, it lives in your heart. It lives in your soul. It is when we say “Next year in Jerusalem”. That isnotapoli calprogram,butaninfluen alideaforwhichweyearn.
Obviously, peace in the current context is, at best, foolishness and naïve – but ul mately, what do we want? Don’t we want more for our kids, and for our grandchildren? We only can get to tomorrow, if we havecouragetodreamabouttomorrow!Certainly,itisrarelyprac calnornecessarilypossible,butitis what is worthy. Messianic thinking isn’t supposed to be here and now – it is the fantasy of our heart.
Oneofthemostfamousprophe cpassagescomesfromMicah,wherehesays,“Godhasshownyou,O mortal,whatisgood,”theprophetcon nues.“AndwhatdoestheLordrequireofyou?Toactjustlyand to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
Extraordinary mes call for ordinary measures. When things go as we expect them to go, we generally know what we are called to do. When, however, the world outside our control gets out of control, we o$en find ourselves in a panic, unsure of how to respond. The ordinary things we know how to do, but they no longer bring the results we desire.
What do we do now? Now we must remember that the most calamitous of mes call for the most plain of responses. What we need to do is what we always have needed to do: the right thing!
The prophet Micah provided for us a concise summary of just what the right thing is: “do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God”.
That we live in unjust mes, in lands with unjust rulers, does not change our duty to do jus ce, but intensifies it.
That we live in callous mes, in lands of rulers without compassion, does not change our duty to love mercy, but intensifies it.
That we live in an age of arrogance, in lands of haughty rulers does not change our duty to walk humbly with our God, but intensifies it.
As Theodor Herzl wrote in 1896, just before the convening of the first Zionist congress, Im rzou eyn zo aggada, “If you will it, it is no dream”. May we have the best new Year that we can, and may we realize our dreams. Shana Tova, rav Tom
Rabbenu Tom