Thursday, August 12, 2010

Justice, Justice, you shall pursue, in this week's portion, Shoftim.

Dear Friends,


I'm away this weekend and will miss you at Torah Study, but here's some Torah-related food for thought.


Consider the texts first. After the study texts, I've offered a derasha (homily).

RJEB


Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 39b.




Anyone who performs a single mitzvah receives good fortune.


Deuteronomy 22:6-7 (from this week's portion, Shoftim).






If you come across a bird’s nest along the way, whether in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother bird hovering over the fledglings or eggs, you must not take the mother bird with her young. Instead, send away the mother bird, but take the young, so that it go well for you, and that your days are prolonged.


Milton Steinberg, As A Driven Leaf (1939), 248-249, based on B. Kiddushin 39b.


At the edge of a garden, down a long slope of lawn, a peasant and a boy circled about the foot of a lone tall tree.

“Get all the eggs, my son,” the man said in a voice that reached the rabbis but faintly. “Be careful to send the mother bird away.”

Nodding the boy set about climbing the tree.

One of the sages shook himself from his hypnotic trance. “That boy will live long,” he muttered whimsically. “For observe, in one act he is fulfilling two commandments, the reward of which is expressly stated as length of days. He is obeying his father, and it is written, ‘Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged upon the earth.’ He will send the mother bird away, thus conforming to the injunction. ‘If a bird’s nest chance before thee … thou shalt surely send the mother bird free that it may go well with thee and that thou mayest prolong your days.’”

A few moments later wings fluttered about a treetop and a bare, slender arm waved toward it from among the branches.

Then a treble cry shattered the silence.

A sprawling body plummeted downward. Simultaneously a deeper voice sounded, inarticulate with panic.

Instantly the rabbis rushed headlong down the grassy slope.

The peasant was already on his knees gathering the boy into his arms.

“Tell me,” he said, lifting a distorted face to them, “does he still live?”

One of the sages bent over the boy, then rose, shaking his head. “Blessed be the Righteous Judge.”


Translations from the Hebrew: J. Blake



Let’s consider the sages who witnessed this death. Most famous, or infamous, among them is Elisha ben Abuyah, who until now has distinguished himself with a handful of wise sayings. The boy’s death, however, proved too much. Even as his colleagues pronounced the blessing Baruch Dayyan Ha-Emet, Blessed be the Righteous Judge, Elisha proclaimed Leit din v’leit Dayyan—There is no justice and there is no Judge.


At this point, Elisha’s story turns tragic. The Sages excommunicate him; he renounces his faith, and is rumored to have become a practitioner of pagan disciplines. A mysterious story elsewhere in the Talmud refers to Elisha as having stepped into a lush orchard, where he “mutilated the plants” in corrupting Jewish teaching. Like the villain Lord Voldemort of Harry Potter’s world, He-Who-Is-Not-To-Be-Named, Elisha’s very name becomes a curse, and he is forever after called Acher, the "Other One."


Leit din v’leit Dayyan—There is no justice and there is no Judge: A shattering cry. A familiar cry.


Tomorrow we will read news from Afghanistan or Israel or some other far-flung part of the world, of another soldier ambushed. Every week brings news of a bombing, a lone gunman gone rampant, an act that strikes terror into the hearts of the innocent.


Like the tender boy tumbling headlong out of the tree, too many victims of terror and violent crime have died fulfilling a mitzvah: In houses of prayer. Defending a friend's life. Helping a stranger out of a burning building. Headlines from across the globe frighten us. How easy to say with Elisha, Leit din v’leit Dayyan. There is no justice. There is no Judge.


Too often there is no justice here at home either. Some of us have amassed wealth through hard work, only to see it devoured by circumstances beyond us. Some have expected a promotion, only to be passed over in favor of someone less experienced. Some have battled baseless lawsuits, endured public humiliation. Some have been deprived of a life’s work by debilitating illness. Others of us have buried friends, siblings, and parents who died too young, wives and husbands, our own sons and daughters.


Kohelet, the gentle cynic of the Hebrew Bible, writes, “In my own brief span of life, I have seen both these things: sometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness, and sometimes a wicked one endures in spite of his wickedness. So don’t overdo goodness and don’t act the wise man to excess, or you may be dumfounded” (Ecclesiastes 7:15-16).


Hard words for a hard world.

They hit even harder because we so crave the idea of fairness, that we hold out hope against all odds that the world will follow our expectations of fair play. Our religion teaches it, does it not? “A person who performs a single mitzvah will have good fortune.” We see how that passage ends: nauseatingly, with a boy falling out of a tree, to his death. We all know good people with terrible fortune. It not only disproves the rule; it is the rule.

A midrash asks what happened to the Tablets of the Commandments that Moses shattered when he saw his people frolicking around the Golden Calf. It concludes that the broken pieces must have been gathered into the Ark alongside the newer tablets. Each one of us resembles that Ark, carrying around our broken pieces, the parts of us mutilated, shattered by injustices we have witnessed or endured. We cannot let them go. They belong to us. We must live with them.


But can we respond to injustice without becoming another Elisha ben Abuyah, who threw away everything he had earned, everything he had learned, to flout his colleagues—and his faith—with “Leit din v’leit Dayyan!”?


I am not yet a cynic, gentle or otherwise. I don’t believe that you can “overdo goodness.” And I draw hope, today, for a meaningful response to injustice from two sources. One is this week's Torah portion. The other is this week's placement in the Jewish calendar. Briefly, let us consider them.


Our Torah portion, Shoftim, contains one of the most celebrated lines in the Torah. Tzedek, tzedek tirdof. Justice, justice, you shall pursue. But why say “justice” twice? The Medieval Rabbis grappled for an explanation. Ibn Ezra says: pursue justice that you may profit from it; pursue justice even if you will incur a loss. Or: pursue justice not only once, but every day of your life. Justice, justice.


We would add: justice in the courtroom, justice in your household; justice for the entitled, justice for the deprived; justice in business; justice in games; justice in a scandal-besmirched Congress; justice to the Taliban; justice to religious extremists everywhere; justice for unfairly maligned Muslims; justice for Israelis; justice for Palestinians; justice, justice, you must pursue!


The emphasis on our pursuit of justice also comes as a rejoinder to Elisha’s dilemma. The Torah would have no need to command “Justice, justice, you shall pursue,” if it in fact wished to persuade us that God’s justice is perfect, that the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished, that life really is fair, you just can’t see it. No; justice, justice, you shall pursue.


As with so much in Judaism, we will shoulder the burden. We will live up to our covenant to exist in partnership with the Holy One. Where God’s justice does not prevail in our world, we will, we will pursue. Martin Luther King’s 16-minute “I Have A Dream” speech still calls to us, still challenges us: “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.”


This week we began the month of Elul. Traditionally we dedicate these thirty days in advance of the New Year to cheshbon ha-nefesh, to self-evaluation. This first week of Elul, let us acknowledge that we cannot reasonably expect justice from our world if we do not demand it of ourselves.


How well do we respect rules of fair play? Do we demand honesty from our children but then pass them off as younger to get discounted theater or chair lift tickets? Do we demand full disclosure from our loved ones while keeping secrets to ourselves? Do we demand precision from our employees while cutting corners in our own work? Even as we are forced to contemplate the minefield of random injustice that pockmarks our world, Elul urges us to consider: in the past year, what have I done to make myself more just?


These concerns laid heavy on the heart of Rabbi Levi of Berditchev, who sat lonesome by his window on the first day of Elul, three centuries ago. A cobbler looking for business passed by and asked if he had anything to mend. Reb Levi broke down. “Rosh Ha-Shanah is almost here,” he sobbed softly, “and I have still not begun to mend myself.”

We too repeat the words, Tzedek, tzedek: Justice in our world; justice in ourselves.

On Rosh Ha-Shanah, less than a month from today, if you look at the night sky, you can see the sign of the Zodiac for the month of Tishri. It is a balance, a scale—symbol of justice. That night we will stand as if before the Supreme Judge and pray as if our fates hang in the balance, deeds weighed on a Divine scale of merit.


I say this not to cause alarm, but so that we might use these days to consider our commitment to justice—in our community, in ourselves—to prepare for our "day in court." May we judge ourselves in such a way as to bring strength and honor to our names, our loved ones, the Jewish people, and all God's children everywhere.


I wish you a Chodesh Tov: a month of personal growth, self awareness, and spiritual balance.


Shabbat Shalom!


Adapted from remarks delivered at Westchester Reform Temple in August, 2003

12 comments:

  1. How is it you invoke the concept of God, when you believe this universe has come about by way of evolution, from the Big Bang or something, aligning yourself with a common scientific theory? For example, when you say, "God's children", how do we rectify the implied contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why do you believe that "God" needs to mean a supernatural being? Great Jewish theologians for centuries have offered ways of reconciling the teachings of science with those of religion. If Maimonides were alive today, I promise you, he'd accept the truth of scientific teaching, which was the guiding principle of his philosophy of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JEB, Mr. Stone asked you a good question and you answer him by "promising" him something strange. Maimonides declared a set of 13 principles that define the Jew and his religion, and you promise that that text means something entirely different from what is clearly stated.

    If you do not believe in G-d as a supernatural being, then tell us what you do think He is, or - at least, tell us how scientists account for this universe's provenance. I, as a physicist, find that most physicists beg the one ultimate question that needs to be asked once they provide all their extensive theories for the origin of this world, and that question is, "And where did that INITIAL PHYSICAL SUBSTRATE come from?"

    Then, perhaps you can answer his question - how do you rectify the supernatural being you speak about when quoting Talmud and Torah, for that is what the sages refer to, with your own concept of a non-supernatural evolution, when that has nothing to do with the stuff you're quoting from.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Read Maimonides "Guide to the Perplexed" (NOT his 13 articles, which were written for the masses but rather his Guide which was written for his disciples in Philosophy) and Spinoza's "Tractatus..." and then we can chat some more. Or read some Chasidic wisdom which presents God AS the Universe ("Everything is God") or the Zohar which explodes the notion of God.... Rather than being a supernatural entity, God is the flow of divinity through every atom of the universe. If you are prepared to converse about texts beyond the period of the Talmud, I'm up for it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Vladimir:

    My comments about justice have been misunderstood by a few people, so let me clarify:

    Justice ought to be a universally applied objective. When bigots continue to malign the world's billion-and-a-half Muslims as universally extremist and bent on terrorism, I call for justice to right the scales. However, in the case of the extremists (the Taliban, Hamas, etc.), it is my prayer that they will swiftly be brought to justice and removed from power, even by military force. Do you really think I'm such a bleeding heart liberal that I sympathize with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban?! God forbid!

    Hope this clarifies my point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I did read The Guide to the Perplexed. There he speaks of G-d as a supernatural being, that is, a supernatural being that is not corporeal, and cannot be fathomed by our limited intellect and senses.

    His first sentence in this book reads, In the name of G-d, Lord of the Universe."
    The last sentence in the book reads, "G-d is near to all who call Him ... and never goes astray. Amen."

    Now perhaps you can answer Richard's "rectification" question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rabbi Blake,
    Perhaps you did not understand my question, so I'll rephrase it, with an example. You said "May we judge ourselves in such a way as to bring strength and honor to our names, our loved ones, the Jewish people, and all God's children everywhere."

    Why did you say "God's children" if what you mean is, just, children? Why invoke "God" when that implies a supernatural power?

    As the Mr Vladmir correctly points out, that power is something scientists avoid mention of because they impugn its capacity for creation. Yet the talmudic scholars you quote from would disagree wholeheartedly with such impugnment.

    So why do you speak of God as scientists would not, yet lean on science to support their notion as opposed to the notion assumed by the sages you quote (as when you quote from Kiddushin)? That's like sitting on a fence and playing both sides of the aisle.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Richard:

    I appreciate the clarification of your question.

    I am comfortable using the language of "GOD" even though when I say "God" I am not referring to a supernatural being. In so doing, my theology is not in line with the "traditional" theological notion of a supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing Being.

    Rather, my theology is fundamentally MYSTICAL, which is to say, I am oriented toward how we can EXPERIENCE GOD in our lives and in the universe.

    In short, there's more than one way to believe in God. Spinoza believed that the UNIVERSE itself IS GOD. Of course, he was deemed heretical in his day by his own Jewish community, but his insights have proved surprisingly durable and influential, centuries after his death. Other, more recent Jewish thinkers, like Mordecai Kaplan, have proposed that God is not a supernatural being, but rather a "Power" or "Process" that allows for human beings to experience salvation or redemption.

    As I see it, the universe itself is the ever-unfolding manifestation of God's presence.

    Thank you for your comments and I appreciate your interest in our blog.
    Rabbi Jonathan Blake

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Torah tells us quite clearly there is nothing but G-d and that G-d is all-inclusive. Moses said it to the Jewish people (Deut. 4, 35), "There is nothing but Him". This concept predates Spinoza, and therefore not attributable to him. Put the crown on the right head.

    This very concept comprises much of Chassidic philosophy. So you merit to have captured some of this lofty knowledge.

    You grant Him ubiquity, but you deny Him omniscience. You grant Torah and Talmud its wisdom, but you put forth your own (or that of theoretical scientists) as superceding it. The psychology behind this, if we eliminate confusion, may well be because - should you admit to a supernatural "being", you'd no longer have the convenience to do as you like. Subconsciously you protect yourself. By putting yourself first (or the pseudowisdom of scientists), your considerations preempt any others. You thus justify a carefree life free of the yoke of observance.

    An example of audacity is citation of sages and ignoring these very sages' perspectives. Another glaring example is when you reinterpret Maimonides to render the very opposite of what he meant.

    Which is why Moses told us, "Be humble with the Lord, Your G-d".
    There is One Who Knows Best.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Dr. Salk (any relation to Jonas?):

    I am appreciative of your thoughtful and cogent comment. With a sigh, I must grant that you could be at least partly correct in your estimation, for in order for me to live without hypocrisy in a belief system that included an all-powerful, supernatural God who literally commands us to obey mitzvot, I would certainly feel less "carefree" (to use your word) about certain aspects of my Jewish observance (and, in cases, non-observance).

    Fortunately, I sleep comfortably at night, secure in my beliefs and confident that Reform Judaism is an authentic expression (one of many) of our shared religion.

    As for "reinterpreting Maimonides to render the very opposite of what he meant," I must again take exception. The essential premise of Maimonidean thought is that Truth is Truth, no matter its source. Maimonides believed that whatever we learn from Science/Reason/Philosophy must necessarily reflect God's will, and so when a scientific methodology proposed conclusions about the universe that ran counter to inherited traditional wisdom, it was RELIGIOUS TEACHING that would have to be scrutinized and reinterpreted accordingly in light of established scientific truths. I can only conclude that Maimonides--not only a rabbi but a philosopher and a physician--would be dismayed at your denigration of Science as "pseudowisdom."

    Please know that I offer this counterpoint with respect for your words and in the spirit of our shared love of learning Torah.

    Rabbi Jonathan Blake

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rabbi Blake,

    Perhaps there really has been an evolutionary change in humans. How else can you explain all that silent history of humans before 4,000 years ago? We must have leaped into Homo Sapienism about that time, otherwise you'd expect that human wisdom could have recorded much of what happened before this time.

    As for the survival of the fittest, the evolution from monkey to man, by definition, means that along that evolutionary axis every new species had survived and therefore there would be no problem in finding specimens of these intermediate stages of species. But alas, we find none. I wonder why, if they survived and thrived.

    Have any species we know of undergone evolution in the last 3,000 years? There is not one shred of evidence (forget the fallability of the theory). Yet you're a diehard fan of this hypothetical scientific circle.

    As for scientists who claim there's no superior power, most cosmological theorists never broach the issue of where the original substrate derived from. Read most any book on the Big Bang and the talk is from the point of the explosion and henceforth of some primordial material - that is never accounted for.

    In fact, those cosmologists that have looked into the origin of original matter, ended up invoinge some originating power. For example, Frank Tipler ended up writing a book entitled, The Physics of Immortality, for which the subtitle reads, "Modern Cosmology, G-d and the Resurrection of the Dead" - and this guy is no religious person to be sure. His whole book is purely physics and math!

    And what do YOU think it derived from? If there's no G-d, then from whence the world? Why lay all your faith on hypothetical theories of "evolution", when you read and reread the Torah every day and still remain numb to the idea of divinity? Is the veil of Nature so thick you cannot see through it to realize its wondrous ongoing miracle?

    If you find a watch in the desert, will you not regard the one who tells you "it evolved" as foolish? Is this world any less wondrous?

    Maimonides speaks of G-d all over his books. His truth is not a philisophical truth reliant in human thought. His truth is the truth of Torah, and nothing but the truth of Torah. I quoted to you from each end of the book you spoke of, to show you that G-d was at the core of everything Maimonides believed in.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am enjoying this interchange.

    BUT,

    if you are trying to convince me that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is in any way specious, please know that you are barking up the wrong tree. In virtually all academic and scientific communities all over the world, the truth established by Darwin is accepted as fact, with overwhelming evidence indicating that species evolve via natural selection. Your claim about gaps in the evolutionary record is patently false, and more and more paleontological evidence is uncovered every day to fill in the gaps that heretofore do exist in the evolutionary fossil record. If you were to present the above remark in any respectable academic institution, it would be roundly discredited.

    The bigger point, however, is that you do not allow for the possibility that one can believe in God and still NOT be a Bible-thumping Creationist. Friends, Judaism has always been a flexible enough religious worldview to accommodate growing human knowledge about the universe. We were never meant to close our eyes, ears, and minds to God's wisdom revealed in the fabric of the cosmos itself. I am not a godless man. To the contrary, I daily see God revealed in the miraculous natural world. Furthermore, the Torah is a primary tool for me to locate God in the genius of the Jewish people.

    Your ill-concluded assumption that I am "numb to the idea of divinity" could not be further from the truth. It's just that you and I have a very different definition of God.

    Why is my belief so hard for you to accommodate? Why is it that I am perfectly comfortable accepting that *your* kind of belief in God has its place within Judaism, while you remain closed off to any different way of understanding God? Why do you feel threatened by my insistence that Jewish theology benefits from a multiplicity of views? Is your world so black and white that no shade of gray can be seen?

    Judaism is a multicolored tapestry of belief and practice. Always has been, always will be. It is true, perhaps, that our present day has seen an explosion of Jewish diversity never before experienced. On the other hand, the incredible diversity of Talmudic opinion illustrates that we have never offered only one way of looking at the world.

    What unites the great geniuses of our faith has always been a shared quest to experience Divinity in human life and in Nature. You and I are part of that quest. Let's open our minds and our hearts wide enough to make room for more than one point of view.

    ReplyDelete