Who needs criticism? TB Arachin 16b

Who likes criticism? Who enjoys hearing judgmental comments and faulty finger-pointing?

     One thing is for sure; I resent criticism, especially if it is harsh. I hate it when people put a mirror in my face and say: “Look at yourself… and see how wrong you are”. To be honest, it is often painful and difficult to take, even constructive criticism and correction.

     The act of criticism from a Jewish perspective, when offered among Jews in order to correct wrong behavior, is a Mitzvah, called tochecha in Hebrew or rebuke. Its origins are found in the Bible; “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely reprove your fellow; and not bear sin because of him.” (Leviticus 19:17) But we need to be aware of the fact that there are situations in which offering criticism does not help but only shames the person. So, how and when should we offer criticism? What kinds of risks are we taking?

     Based on this Biblical verse, the rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud, Arachin 16b explore the notion of rebuke. There is a similar principle in BT Shabbat 55a;

1. To rebuke is to fulfill a social obligation even if one refuses to accept the rebuke;

      From the repetition of the word 'rebuke' in the verse “rebuking you shall rebuke” or “you shall surely rebuke” we learn that there is an obligation to repeat the reproof, even though it was not accepted when administered first. Thus, rebuke is a social obligation.

         Our Rabbis taught: …Whence do we know that if a man sees something unseemly in   his neighbor, he is obliged to reprove him? Because it is said: ‘You shall surely rebuke’.
If he rebuked him and he did not accept it, how do we know that he must rebuke him again? The text states: ‘surely rebuke‘ anyway. One might assume [this to be obligatory] even though his face blanched, therefore the text states: ‘You shall not bear sin because of him’.

     When the rabbis discuss how and when to rebuke another person they acknowledge the fact that there are people and contexts in which offering rebuke does not help. Here, we find a number of principles;

2. Human beings have a hard time taking criticism;

     R. Tarfon said, “I wonder whether there is anyone in this generation who can accept reproof, for if one says to him, ‘Remove the mote from between your eyes,’ he would reply, ‘Remove the beam from between your eyes!’ ”

     Rabbi Tarfon observed that people no longer accepted criticism as an act of love. Instead of listening openly to a description of how they had acted inappropriately and then working to modify their behavior to remove that flaw, the object of rebuke would respond defensively by either ignoring or insulting the person who had highlighted the error.

3. It is an art to know how to criticize in the right way;
    
      R. Eleazar ben Azariah said, “I wonder if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to rebuke!”

     Rabbi Eleazer ben Azaria begs us to think about the right way to criticize another person. Even if we do not mean to insult or hurt, we do offer words that push buttons. What words should we use or avoid?

4. One who wants to improve oneself will want to hear criticism because he/she knows that it will make him/her better, and will consequently love the one who criticism him/her.
    
      R. Yochanan ben Nuri said, “I call heaven and earth to witness for myself that Akiba was often rebuked by me, for I used to complain against him before Rabban Gamliel, and he showered love upon me all the more, fulfilling what has been said, Do not rebuke a scoffer, for he will hate you; reprove a wise person and he will love you (Proverbs 9:8).”

     However, contrary to Arachin 16b, the Talmud commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1105), emphasizes a different principle; that one should not offer criticism if it will not be heard or obeyed, and no rebuke should be addressed to one who is sure to ignore it, as the Babylonian Talmud in Yevamot 65b puts it; 

     R. Ile'a further stated in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: As one is commanded to say that which will be obeyed so is one commanded not to say that which will not be obeyed. R. Abba stated: It is a duty; for it is said in Scripture (Proverbs 9:8); Do not reprove a fool, as he will hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you. 

     Now, let’s face it. It is so much nicer to be praised, so why would anyone accept rebuke? But since criticism is a social control - mechanism and a fact of reality, perhaps the question is not why people should accept rebuke, rather I suggest the question – in what way we should offer rebuke. A rebuke properly offered, without anger or attitude, for example, could become an act of affirmation and love, not resentment. It shows that we care enough about this person and want to help correcting wrong doing. In addition, my colleague Hune Margulies from the "Martin Buber Institute Dialogical-Ecology" offered another important question:

"Who can consider himself qualified enough to offer truly useful rebuke? or morally worthy? are we rebuking someone for sinning differently than we do? we cannot learn how to fly because we are not meant to, and likewise it so hard to learn how to rebuke because maybe we shouldn't".

Friends, colleagues and family who are willing to point out our errors offer us a gift. How else will it be possible to correct wrong doing? By looking at the mirror that they place in front of us we can understand that the way we act depends on how others perceive our actions, and we need to respect that as well.

     Yes. There is a lot we can learn from criticism even though it may appear negative. If we wish to improve and develop we should invite constructive criticism and appreciate their suggestions.

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

The angels among us

              Often, when I minister pastoral care for patients before their upcoming surgery I offer them a small section from the bedtime Sh’ma prayer;

In the name of Adonai
the God of Israel:
May the angel Michael be at my right,
and the angel Gabriel 'strength of God'. be at my left;
and in front of me the angel Uriel,
and behind me the angel Raphael 'healer of God'
and above my head
the Sh'khinah.

          Patients tell me that they feel comforted by this prayer and share that it gives them the opportunity to visualize a connection with the divine. The skeptics may ask; “where are these four angels? I really cannot see them.”

·       When Abraham was sitting outside of his tent after his circumcision and the three visitors came to his tent, he did not know they were angels. The Gemara in Baba Matzia 86b asks; “Who were the three men”?

The Gemara answers; “Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. Michael came to bring the tidings to Sarah [of Isaac's birth]; Raphael, to heal Abraham and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom”.

 The Gemara continues; “But is it not written “And there came the two angels to Sodom at evening” (Gen. 19:1)? The answer; Michael accompanied him [Gabriel] to rescue Lot”.

          Although Lot calls them angels, the people who wanted to hurt the angels referred to them as People; “And they called out to Lot; where are these people who came to you at the night”? (GEN. 19:5)

·       When Jacob was wrestling until dawn with an unknown man, Jacob did not know he was dealing with an angel. The Gemara in Chulin 91b describes the scene:

  “... and the man said to Jacob: ‘let me go since the dawn has broken’ (Genesis 32:27). But Jacob said: ‘Are you are thief or a kidnapper that you are afraid of the dawn’? The man said: ‘I am an angel. And from the day I was created my time did not come to sing [to God in the morning service] until now’.

And the Gemara continues; “This supports the teaching of R. Hananel in the name of Rav; three assemblies of ministering angels sing praise each day. One sings “Holy”. Another sings “Holy” and another sings “Holy is the Lord of Hosts”.

          From here, the Gemara explains the Divine mission of this angel is. This, in fact, reflects our liturgy today. In our daily prayers we refer to the songs of praise which the angels sing before God.

          So, we really do not need to look for winged entities in order to be convinced they exist. The Gemara in Yoma 37a tells us that we, as humans, can emulate angels;

“….. And we have learned in a Baraita (an eternal source for the Talmud), that when three [students] walk [with their Master], the Master ought to be in the middle, the greater of two on his right, and the other on his left. And so we find that of the three angels that came to Abraham, Michael was in the middle, Gabriel on his right, and Raphael on his left.

R. Samuel b. Papa explained before R. Adda, that it is meant, he should walk on his right, but a little behind, and not side by side. Did we not learn in a Baraita that he who precedes the Master is rude, and he who walks behind his Master is too ostentatiously humble? He should fall a little back--not precede, and not follow.

          The important item that Rashi adds is that by this composition of walking, the students, walking alongside to their Master protect him, just like the angels as described in the bedtime Sh’ma.

          I think that one way to ‘see’ angels is to look around and watch how people act. Midrash Tanchuma reassures us that there are angels among us. These are created through the deeds of man. When one does a good deed, God gives this person one angel. If one fulfills two good deeds God gives this person two angels, and so on. Many of us are performing good deeds and thus are granted angels. All we need to do is recognize who they are. At difficult times look in people’s eyes and you will find the angel who carries God’s essence. Could your doctors and nurses at the bed side be the angels at time of a health crisis? Could a child who helped your elderly mother be an angel? Or, perhaps, could it be you who carries out a divine mission to help others? 

            Each one of us carries the divine and is an angelic being, but it is not obviously recognized that our own body is a container of angelic energy. It is not easy to realize a world that is beyond the material. It was called by the Baal Shem Tov “seeing the Divine Presence in everything”. This time, we are asked not only to become aware of who is in our community, but also to recognize the spiritual essence that lies behind the external form of people. Perhaps God’s intervention is manifested by each one of us for each one of us through the angelic metaphorical essence. May we be guided by angels that God implanted among us. Let us affirm; “Here, God is sending me an angel and God’s Name is within him or her” and remember that we do not journey alone.

Modesty? What is this all about?

In light of what happened in Beth Shemesh, when Ultra-Orthodox men made an innocent 8 years old girl an outcast, I have been very upset. Why is it the woman who is blamed for the uncontrolled sexual desires of men. Why does a little girl become a sex object in the eyes of men who are constantly trying their best to demoralize Jewish women and dis-empower women?

A timely Op-Ed in the NY Times a few days ago makes some good points. While Orthodox men today claim that controlled sexuality in men is women's solely responsibility, the Talmud teaches the opposite. The men should be responsible for their own actions and how they interact with women.

Read this article below:

Op-Ed Contributor

Lechery, Immodesty and the Talmud

By DOV LINZER  January 19, 2012

IS it possible for a religious demand for modesty to be about anything other than men controlling women’s bodies? From recent events in Israel, it would certainly seem that it is not.

 

Jennifer Uman

Last month, an innocent, modestly dressed 8-year-old girl, Naama Margolese, living in Beit Shemesh, described being spat on and vilified by religious extremists — all men — who believed that she did not dress modestly enough while walking past them to the religious school she attends. And more and more, public buses in Israel are enforcing gender segregation imposed by ultra-Orthodox riders in and near their neighborhoods. Woe to the girl or woman who refuses to move to the back of the bus.

This is part of a larger battle being waged in Israel between the ultra-Orthodox and the rest of Israeli society over women’s place in society, over their very right to have a visible presence and to participate in the public sphere.

What is behind these deeply disturbing events? We are told that they arise from a religious concern about modesty, that women must be covered and sequestered so that men do not have improper sexual thoughts. It seems, then, that a religious tenet that begins with men’s sexual thoughts ends with men controlling women’s bodies.
This is not a problem unique to Judaism. But the Talmud, the basis for Jewish law, offers a perhaps surprising answer: It places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.

Put more plainly, the Talmud says: It’s your problem, sir; not hers.
The ultra-Orthodox men in Israel who are exerting control over women claim that they are honoring women. In effect they are saying: We do not treat women as sex objects as you in Western society do. Our women are about more than their bodies, and that is why their bodies must be fully covered.

In fact, though, their actions objectify and hyper-sexualize women. Think about it: By saying that all women must hide their bodies, they are saying that every woman is an object who can stir a man’s sexual thoughts. Thus, every woman who passes their field of vision is sized up on the basis of how much of her body is covered. She is not seen as a complete person, only as a potential inducement to sin.

Of course, once you judge a female human being only through a man’s sexualized imagination, you can turn even a modest 8-year-old girl into a seductress and a prostitute.

At heart, we are talking about a blame-the-victim mentality. It shifts the responsibility of managing a man’s sexual urges from himself to every woman he may or may not encounter. It is a cousin to the mentality behind the claim, “She was asking for it.”
So the responsibility is now on the women. To protect men from their sexual thoughts, women must remove their femininity from their public presence, ridding themselves of even the smallest evidence of their own sexuality.

All of this is done in the name of the Torah and Jewish law.
But it’s actually a complete perversion. The Talmud, the foundation of Jewish law, acknowledges that men can be sexually aroused by women and is indeed concerned with sexual thoughts and activity outside of marriage. But it does not tell women that men’s sexual urges are their responsibility. Rather, both the Talmud and the later codes of Jewish law make that demand of men.

It is forbidden for a man to gaze sexually at a woman, whether beautiful or ugly, married or unmarried, says the Talmud. Later Talmudic rabbis extended this ban even to “her smallest finger” and “her brightly colored clothing — even if they are drying on the wall.”

To make these the woman’s responsibility is to demand that Jewish women cover their hands, and that they not dry their clothes in public. No one has ever said this. At least not yet.

The Talmud tells the religious man, in effect: If you have a problem, you deal with it. It is the male gaze — the way men look at women — that needs to be desexualized, not women in public. The power to make sure men don’t see women as objects of sexual gratification lies within men’s — and only men’s — control.

Jewish tradition teaches men and women alike that they should be modest in their dress. But modesty is not defined by, or even primarily about, how much of one’s body is covered. It is about comportment and behavior. It is about recognizing that one need not be the center of attention. It is about embodying the prophet Micah’s call for modesty: learning “to walk humbly with your God.”

Eight-year-old Naama could teach her attackers a thing or two about modesty.

Dov Linzer, an Orthodox rabbi, is the dean of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School in the Riverdale section of the Bronx.

 A version of this op-ed appeared in print on January 20, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Lechery, Immodesty And the Talmud.

Prayers at end-of life and advanced directives – Ketubot 104a

It is often that I am invited or asked to offer a prayer for healing for people who are sick. Even those who claim that they do not believe in prayer per se are willing to listen to a prayer when they are ill. And those who claim that they do not believe in praying for someone, are found to express verbally in some way or another encouragement and hopes for their loved one. The difficulty arises when there is so much pain involved, when there is no quality of life anymore, and no hope left for recovery or survival. Not always we feel that we have the permission or feel free to pray for a speedy death. Some tell me that they feel phony by giving ‘false hope’ and they also feel guilty when they wish that suffering should end with death.


In the Gemara in Ketubot 104a we read of a case, where prayers for healing could make the difference between life and death;

     On the day when Rabbi [R. Judah haNasi (135-220 C.E.) compiled the Mishnah] died the Rabbis decreed a public fast and [before that] they offered prayers for heavenly mercy [that he would not die].

     Rabbi's handmaid ascended the roof and prayed: 'The immortals [the angels] desire Rabbi [to join them] and the mortals [humans] desire Rabbi [to remain with them]; may it be the will [of God] that the mortals may overpower the immortals'. When, however, she saw how often he resorted to the privy [He was suffering from acute and painful diarrhea] painfully taking off his tefillin [These must not be worn when the body is not in a state of perfect cleanliness] and putting them on again, she prayed: 'May it be the will [of God] that the immortals may overpower the mortals'. As the Rabbis incessantly continued their prayers for [heavenly] mercy she took up a jar and threw it down from the roof to the ground. [For a moment] they ceased praying and the soul of Rabbi departed.

While Rabbi Judah’s handmaid, but not the rabbi's. students, is praised in the Gemara for her actions, as she understood when enough is enough, the Jewish law sanctions passive euthanasia -- at least in those cases in which the dying individual is incurable and/or is in great pain. Take this Talmudic story and parallel it with what is going on in our society. If prayer could be paralleled with our advanced medical technology to prolong life (many times at all costs), there is an awareness that actions such as termination of life support create potential moral and medical conflicts between health care providers, family members and patients. The ongoing discussion whether it is or it is not ethical to disconnect the machine causes terrible tension to arise. It is especially very sad when family members or health care providers insist on providing care where there is no hope for recovery.

In the USA, the term ‘euthanasia’ has a negative connotation and implies helping death even when there IS hope. This is not what I am talking about. I am clearly advocating for assisting death with Comfort Caring Care when the time is right.   

Similarly, Reform Rabbi Solomon Freehof of the 20^th century claims that just the way a man and woman have the right to live; they also have the right to die with dignity. He concludes that if one may pray for the death of the hopeless ill, one may take other measures which will promote the inevitable end.

In light of my experience as a chaplain, I know that there are some ways to bypass some of the ethical questions and dilemmas that family members and health care providers are faced with and deal with. I refer to the Advance Directives form that everyone can complete even way before sickness strikes -- and this can be achieved even without any attorney. This advanced medical decision allows our given autonomy to instruct family and physicians in advance, what kind of treatment should be given when End of Life knocks at the door. Some patients choose the DNR, some want no heroic measures and others want all to be done. I have to admit that Advanced Directives are not always followed… or patients change their mind during crisis, but at least for the most part, it gives family members a peace of mind (ideally, but not always) and dignity could be achieved.

Today's concepts of Advance Directives presume an individual autonomy that was not presumed in Talmudic times. But the account in Ketubot 104a of the anonymous maid of Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, and how she changed her prayer as Rabbi was dying, remains a powerful primary resource for Jewish end-of-life decision-making. 


I have presented a very complicated topic in a rather simplistic way. But, I still would like to send out my encouragement that we keep praying for our loved ones when they need the extra energy to go on. Together with my suggestion to let the conversations of Advanced Directives start with family members as we exercise the ability to listen to one another with love, understanding and – prayers.

About the One Who is Not Forgiven

Quiet often we are instructed to feel obligated to forgive our loved ones and other relations. As I wrote in the previous post, it is important to act in a Godly manner and bypass anger with forgiveness and mercy. Rarely do I hear discussions about the severe negative impact that non-forgiveness has on the person who is not granted forgiveness.

  It is important to focus on what goes on with a person who was not forgiven. Recently I met with Sara (not her real name) who shared a very painful story about not being forgiven by  (what was) her best friend -- a story full of anger, sadness and toxic energy.  

In Sara’s description, the mere thought of this person gives her pain. She said: “I feel like a knife is stubbing my heart every time I am around this individual.” I tried to re-direct her attention from painful feeling of “not being forgiven” to a more positive understanding of it, but Sara kept expressing her anger and sadness. I also sensed her deep mourning for the loss of this friendship by holding onto grievance. In a way, she has been forced to keep this individual in her life, while in fact - he is no longer a part of it.

Sara claims that in order to obtain forgiveness, she acted according to the Jewish ethical law. She sincerely apologized three times for the wrong she committed against this friend. Still, her friend refused to grant forgiveness. This law is described in the Gemara, Yoma 87a;

R. Jose b. Hanina said: One who asks pardon of his neighbor need do so no more than three times, as it is said: Forgive. I pray thee now . . . and now we pray thee (in Gen. 50:17 the brothers, in their appeal to Joseph to forgive the wrong they had done to him, use the term ‘na’ [O, pray] three times).

The Gemara in Baba Kamma 92a also teaches;

Our Rabbis taught: ….For regarding the hurt done to the feelings of the plaintiff, even if the offender should bring all the 'rams of Nebaioth' in the world, the offence would not be forgiven until he asks him for pardon…

Sara believes that if one truly asks for forgiveness there is no option but to forgive this person as an obligation; Maimonides writes in Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 2:10

”It is forbidden to be obdurate and not allow yourself to be appeased. On the contrary, one should be easily pacified and find it difficult to become angry. When asked by an offender for forgiveness, one should forgive with a sincere mind and a willing spirit... forgiveness is natural to the seed of Israel."

            Unfortunately, Sara’s ex-friend cannot get over the hurt. But, there is nothing more that Sara can do in order to un-do her hurtful deeds. Perhaps the only thing that was and is left – is to seek redemption and repentance by apologizing. Thus, anyone who denies forgiveness after being begged for it is cruel!  The Mishnah in Baba Kamma 92a also believes it is so;  

 Mishna; even though the offender pays him [compensation], the offence is not forgiven until he asks him for pardon… whence can we not learn that should the injured person not forgive him he would be [stigmatized as] cruel?

            I hope that all of us would have the ability to forgive because forgiveness is a great gift that could be given to others. It helps release pain and relieves emotional turmoil - for both parties involved. Let us show this high moral and divine quality in us that could repair and build, not destroy and tear down. As the Gemara in Ta’anit 25a informs us that the prayers of the great sage, Rabbi Akiba were answered because he was forbearing and forgiving, I pray that we could be like Rabbi Akiba and spare the pain that Sara shared with me;

.

R. Eliezer long prayed for rain but was not answered. R. Akiba came up to the Bima, offered a prayer of a few verses, and rain descended. A voice from heaven was heard to say, “It's not that R. Akiba is the greater man, but R. Eliezer remembers his wrongs and those who wronged him, and R. Akiba forgets”.

May My mercy suppress My anger; Berakhot 7a

     Often when we feel angry with someone who hurt us in any way, we seem to forget all the positive qualities that still exist in that person. We may feel that revenge is essential and that the relationship is doomed. As the Jewish nation is approaching the High Holiday season, aka Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Jewish people are encouraged to forgive those who hurt them, to love and be kind to those who are not exactly “loveable” and worthy. There are many who are faced with the serious dilemma how to forgive with kindness and compassion. People do not know how to take a complete primary, natural, and mature emotion such as anger and transform it to love and forgiveness. And worse is the fact that many feel guilty about not being able to bypass their anger.

            There is a lot to say about the ways to manage anger. I am sure you are aware of the many workshops and life coaching sessions that are offered worldwide. I personally know people who have been going to psychotherapy for years and years, yet, not being able to forgive an abusive father or attend lovingly to a friend who betrayed their trust. So, how about a new way to look at anger management?

           Actually, I do not have the perfect solution to offer you. But instead, I would like to share a very special text from the Gemara that is dear to me and gives me the chill everytime I read it. It might give us an important insight of what it means to manage anger. It is a text that teaches us that anger management is required not only of us, but also of God. The rabbis in the Talmud have no hesitations to claim that God has the need to pray, just like us; that God needs human’s blessings just the way human need God’s blessings; and that God needs to meditate on controlling anger with mercy, just like the way we are told to do.

The text of interest is in Berakhot 7a and starts with the following;

What does God pray? R. Zutra b. Tobi said in the name of Rab: “May it be My will that My mercy may suppress My anger, and that My mercy may prevail over My [other] attributes, so that I may deal with My children through the attribute of mercy and, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice.”

            The rabbis teach us that God may lack full control over God’s own actions and emotions, but God does not give up the wish to repair anger with mercy. It is an amazing thought that from all prayers, God needs to pray this particular prayer about repairing anger with mercy.
And the Gemara continues:

            It was taught: R. Ishmael b. Elisha* says: I once entered into the innermost part [of the Sanctuary] to offer incense** and saw Akathriel, the Lord of Hosts, seated upon a high and exalted throne. God said to me: Ishmael, My son, bless Me! I replied: ”May it be Your will that Your mercy may suppress Your anger and Your mercy may prevail over Your other attributes, so that You may deal with Your children according to the attribute of mercy and may, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice!” And God nodded to me with his head. From this we learn that the blessing of an ordinary person must not be considered lightly in your eyes.

----

* One of the lasts High Priests of the Second Temple, around the first century of the Common Era.

** Once a year, on Yom Kippur, only the High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies.

            We see that God is asking a human for a blessing. Rabbi Ishmael blesses God with the same words that God uses in God’s own prayer. Mainly, that God should let the attribute for mercy win over the attribute for anger. Rabbi Ishmael wishes for God that God should conquer the inner psychological struggle, just the way we are encouraged to do over and over again. God is struggling along with us. Then, God nods to affirm the blessing with silence and acceptance. Rashi says that it means that God is saying Amen to Rabbi Ishmael’s prayer.

            God and Rabbi Ishmael are mirrors of each other and a there is a sense of intimacy between them. If we believe that we are created in the image of God, I would suggest that this scenario should be taken as a model of how to form our understanding of feeling of anger, mercy and forgiveness.  Perhaps we could be inspired and comforted by this image of God that is struggling to keep the balance between anger, mercy and judgment.  Perhaps we could take it upon ourselves to remember that it is OK for us to struggle with the same issues with no guilt as well.  

            Furthermore, I would suggest that when we keep meditate and remind ourselves that the goal is mercy, not anger, we might be able to shift things around subconsciously and gain the strength to easily forgive. And this way of thinking should be done not only before the High Holidays, but all year around. And then we may ask God to help us to forgive those who have hurt us.

            What are your issues with anger and forgiveness? Is this Gemara helpful to you at all?


© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

The Spirituality of Na’aseh Ve’nishmah; Shabbat 88a

        Preparing for this week’s festival of Shavuot, I wonder about the real meaning of the unconditional commitment that the Israelites proposed. As they stood at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, they said to Moses; Na’aseh Ve’Nishmah --  “We will DO [observe the Laws] and then we will listen/understand ” [study these laws]. An outsider would think that we have a nation that is unrealistic and quick to make decisions. Personally, I could see how strange it could be to get involved in something without knowing what the rules of game are. Just like being used to have a User Guide Manuel for new items that I buy. First comes the understanding, and then comes the action. Indeed, the Gemara in Shabbat 88a relates that;

 A foreigner (Nochri) said to Rava, "You are a hasty nation, who put its mouth before its ears [when you said 'Na'aseh v'Nishma' and accepted to do the commandments even before you heard what those commandments are]."

         On the other hand, there seem to be some merit to the Israelite statement. The Gemara in Shabbat 88a reflects the idea that the People of Israel have taken upon themselves a special task that deserves an award. For the rabbis, the words na'aseh v'nishmah indicates the worthiness of the Jewish people for divine revelation.

R. Simai lectured: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hear ,' six hundred thousand ministering angels came and set two crowns upon each man of Israel, one as a reward for  'we will do,' and the other as a reward for 'we will hear'.

      But, what exactly made the People of Israel worthy of the divine revelation? Why do they get the reward? The rabbis felt that the Israelite must have been special as they were able to tap into a divine secret and managed to imitate what the angles do. Just as the angels know first to obey and then to understand God's word, so too the People;

R. Eleazar said: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hear,' a Heavenly Voice went forth and exclaimed to them; “Who revealed to My children this secret, which is employed by the Ministering Angels?

Another way the rabbis show that the People of Israel were unique is by comparing them to an apple tree. The Gemara cites the verse, "[He is] like an apple tree ("Tapu'ach") among the trees of the forest..." (Shir ha'Shirim 2:3). … just as an apple tree reverses the natural order and produces its fruit before its leaves, so, too, the Jews reversed the natural order at Mount Sinai when they said "we will do" before "we will hear." The implication of the Gemara is that the apple tree is different from all other trees, and so are the Israelite. While other trees produce leaves before fruit, the apple tree produces apples before it sprouts its leaves.

R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: What is it that was said: “As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons; in his shadow I like to sit and its fruit is a delight to my palate” (Song of Songs 2:3).  The two lovers in this poem were regarded as God and Israel.  Why were the Israelites compared to an apple tree? Why were Israel compared to an apple? To teach you that; just as the fruit of the apple tree precedes its leaves, so did the Israelites give precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken' [my translation].*

          Perhaps Israel is unique, but I think that each one of us has the same merit. I speculate that the People of Israel could have not reached this point of the “unrealistic” decision if they were not at a high state of a consciousness shift. And so do we, need to reach a special spiritual level to be able to be a doer before a thinker. The People of Israel must have been in a highly meditative state. They were at the moment where they completely trusted the process, mainly – God, and let go of control. They prepared for this time by getting themselves pure. They already established the intention to be there and obey no matter what. This was their time to BE-Come. They were ready to create an identity for themselves, so by challenging themselves, they went beyond the ordinary. They trusted! Perhaps they were able to inject a balance between actions and their intentions, so that their well being could remain intact? Perhaps they found the balance between their relationship to the divine and their own inner sense of well being and trustfulness?

          If I were standing at the foot of Mount Sinai, I too, would have chosen to first commit to Doing and then to Understanding. I believe that when we allow ourselves to be spontaneous, putting the intellect away, we may find ourselves in a place of growth and reward. The art of meditation is teaching that indeed, when we depend too much on the intellect it could interfere with our own growth. The intellect does not let us surrender, be fully present in the moment, and Letting Go.  More than that, when we set aside the intellect we create an opening for the divine connection.

          If I were standing at the foot of Mount Sinai, surrounded by smoke, fire, light and thunder, I too, would have chosen to first commit to Doing and then to Understanding.  To me, there is nothing unusual to embark on unknown journeys because there is something special by taking risks in life and get onto waters that are challenging. How many times did we take risks by just taking a deep breath and go for the scary, but challenging step? I have been there many times…

          So, now, take a moment, pause and ask yourself – are there new visions for your future that may need a risk? Will you be willing to just act before calculating too much, so that it will prevent you from going ahead?
---------

      *Tosafot observes this is untrue of the apple tree, which grows like all other trees; consequently refer this to the citron tree. As the citron remains on the tree from one year to the next, at which time the tree sheds its' leaves of the previous year, the fruit may be said to precede the leaves.

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

“So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.”

              All of us find ourselves in difficult and challenging situations in life. The way we view our challenges is personal, but it is recommended by social workers and spiritual leaders not to feel hopeless. Hope is the belief that from every crisis some good will emerge, and that crisis could be a device to make us stronger – if hope is the basis.

             How does hope work in the political arena...? Listening to our president on Sunday, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, I felt uncomfortable.  I am not sure what exactly was on his mind when he chose to quote a Talmudic passage;

“So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.” 

            Surely, he is sending a message of hope. But if he was trying to talk to the Jewish audience and impress them, he probably did not realize that for Jews, the power of hope is what kept them alive for centuries. For Jews hope is not just a word – it is part of their daily life. So what and where is his amazing so-called message?

            I agree with Obama that we should not give up the vision of peace in the Middle East. But the use of this Talmudic passage is out of context and irrelevant. First he offers a plan that endorses a Jewish state with its 1967 borders with agreed land swaps as the basis for a Palestinian state. Secondly, he sees an urgent need for a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. This is not very hopeful. This is urging Israel to be unsafe and in danger.

            I wish that Obama would focus on a peace process that is the work of the Israelis and the Palestinians together. Peace of the land does not solely depend on Israel. The retreat to the 1967’s borders alone will not bring peace. The Palestinians need to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Arab Middle East first. They have to recognize the fact that Israel is rooted in ancient history. Without this, painful sacrifices and security guarantees will not, and cannot bring peace.

            Perhaps, it would have been helpful if Obama would have used a phrase of hope taken from the Quran, to balance his speech a little? I am sure that the Arab world sees challenges and difficulties as well. How is this phrase;

"And never give up hope of Allah's soothing Mercy: Truly no one despairs of Allah's soothing Mercy except those who have no faith." (12:87)

Do you see hope for a brighter future in the Middle East?

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

"Death and life are in the power of the tongue" (Proverbs 18:21) - Arakhin 15b

       Who amongst you has not been negatively affected by gossip and evil speech? I bet you that there will be no one out there. Not only that, but I think you will agree with me that somehow, sometime in your lifetime, you were the one to “bad mouth” another person behind his/her back. Personally, I have been a victim of slander, which left me wounded up to this day. Some of you will be there for me to share the feeling of helplessness.  What a terrible feeling it is to “be” a topic of a conversation when you are not present, when you cannot defend yourself. I know for a fact that it is impossible to undo the harm.

          Ethnographic accounts and social research show that gossip is actually a good thing. It serves as a mechanism to keep a society in control, in unity and solidarity. When people gossip, they seem to make ethical judgments about behavior and maintain their group’s social values (Max Gluckman). Gossip, anthropologists claim, is  good for you because it provides the individual with an emotional or psychological comfort that creates a feeling of well-being and belonging to a community (Robert Paine).

       As much as I can get what anthropologists are trying to convey, I am not so convinced that gossip, tale bearing and spreading malicious lies about someone are healthy, not for society and not for individuals. They all cause emotional damage and compromise the integrity of many. Thus, Judaism is totally against any speech as such as we are constantly reminded of the biblical commandment, "Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people" (Lev. 19:16). The term that is often used in the Talmud speaks for itself –– lashon harah -- which literary means Evil tongue. In tractate Arakhin 15b we find a number of condemnations of this kind of speech;

     a. It has been considered to be a greater sin than killing someone;

 The School of R. Ishmael taught: Whoever speaks slander increases his sins even up to [the degree of] the three [cardinal] sins: idolatry, incest, and the shedding of blood.

b. It is considered to have a ‘deadly’ implication;

In the West [Palestine] they say: The talk about third [persons] kills three persons: him who tells [the slander], him who accepts it, and him about whom it is told.

          While it is obvious that the one who is spoken about is harmed, the one who speaks lashon Harah is also harmed by lowering himself spiritually. The reputation and dignity of self is compromised and makes this person unworthy. And as we know we shouldn’t talk about others, we do not think that by listening to gossip and being part of an audience, we make lashon harah possible. Thus, the one who listens to lashon Harah is as guilty and also harmed.  

R. Hama b. Hanina said: What is the meaning of: Death and life are in the hand [power] of the tongue? Has the tongue ‘a hand’? It tells you that just as the hand can kill, so can the tongue. One might say that just as the hand can kill only one near it, thus also the tongue can kill only one near it, therefore the text states: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened arrow’. Then one might assume that just as an arrow kills only within forty or fifty cubits, thus also the tongue kills only up to forty or fifty cubits, therefore the text states: ‘They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth’. But since it is written already: ‘They set their mouth against the heavens’, why was it necessary to state also: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened arrow’? — This is what we are informed: That [the tongue] kills as an arrow. But once it is written: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened arrow’, why was it necessary to state: Death and life are in the hand of the tongue’? — It is in accord with Raba; for Raba said: He who wants to live [can find life] through the tongue; he who wants to die [can find death] through the tongue.

     c. It is socially and spiritually unacceptable;

R. Hisda said in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: One who slanders deserves to be stoned.

Hisda says in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: Of him who slanders, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: He and I cannot live together in the world.

In tractate Makkot 23a and in Pesakhim 118a;

…and Rav Sheshet for Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria; Anybody who tells the evil tongue, and anybody who accepts the evil tongue, and anybody who bears false witnessing on his friend – deserves to be thrown to the dogs…

    

       And if you wonder what is considered evil speech, you will find that anytime you say anything about a person that is not present in the room (good or bad), you are guilty of it.

What constitutes evil speech? — Rabbah said: For example [to say] there is fire in the house of So-and-so. [The fire of the oven. The suggestion: they are wealthy and eating all the time.] Said Abaye: What did he do? He just gave information? — Rather, when he utters that in slanderous fashion: ‘Where else should there be fire if not in the house of So-and-so? There is always meat and fish’ [Behind that apparently innocent phrase lurks the slanderer's purpose.]

          Rabbah said: Whatsoever is said in the presence of the person       concerned is not considered evil speech. Said Abaye to him: But then it is the more impudence and evil speech! — He answered: I hold with R. Jose, for R. Jose said: I have never said a word and looked behind my back. [To see whether the man concerned was near. I would say it to his face, which proves that in such a case it is not accounted slander (Rashi).]

          So, now, let me ask; what would motivate us to engaging in evil speech?

- Are we trying to avoid aggressive confrontations with friends?

- Is it possible that instead of telling our friend we are angry with him/her, we want to    take the revenge by gossip?

-Perhaps we all suffer with poor self esteem that we want to gain control and win friendship by slander?

-Are we trying to protect self-interest by this kind of communication?

          Let’s face it -- There is no benefit gained from gossip. Let us all remember what the Psalm 34:13 reminds us "to guard our tongue from evil and our lips from deceitful speech." Let us keep our good intention by talking to each other, not by hiding from one another.

-

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

Suffering and perceptual theology - Berakhot 5a-b

     The topic dealt with in this section of the Talmud is suffering. The rabbis try to understand why people suffer, and in that way, they mean to provide some “therapeutic” tools (if you may) that could make it easier to deal with the difficulties. Indeed, it is very painful to observe our loved ones bearing pain with helplessness and despair. It is difficult when we face health challenges that take us beyond the limits of endurance.

          Many times, patients during my pastoral visits ask for my explanation why they have to face medical challenges. They lose hope, express anger at God, and basically ask me: “Why me? Have I not done good things in life? Have I sinned without even being aware of it, or, why am I punished by God? The truth is that there are different ways to explain suffering, even if only on the theological level. Interesting, there are those who take a distance from God while others find God in their painful experience and grow closer to spiritual life.

          Pain and suffering are universal experiences and part of the human condition whether in small, undeveloped and primitive societies or in large, developed and industrialized ones. However, anthropological studies show that the perception, the understanding and the meaning assigned to pain and suffering are not universal and vary from culture to culture. I would say, each with its own theology.

          Take for example how other societies perceive suffering and pain; some attribute sufferings to the wrong doing of members of the tribe, who provoke bad spirits to react back as punishment. The Paracas of the Southern Coast of Peru release these evil spirits by perforating the skull to relieve internal pressure of a possessed person. The Nuer tribe in Africa believes that pain is a result of collective societal transgressions. And Buddhism always explores the origin of suffering of oneself and believes that it is a product of self invoking mind activities, a constant universal human condition.

          The monotheistic faiths consider suffering within the context of God's power. In Islam, with resemblance to Judaism and Christianity, there are two views of suffering; it is either the result of personal sin and is a way to cleanse the self of imperfection and sins, or, it is a test of faith that will be rewarded by God. 

          While the Jewish way of looking at suffering is equally embracing joyful moments to be  integral in life, there was a search to find meaning in suffering.  There is the understanding that one can be in pain but not necessarily suffer. Suffering seems to be a state of mind, an attitude, a spiritual dimension of pain. The anthropologist Cifford Geertz (The Interpretation Of Cultures, p.105) puts it perfectly:

 “As a religious problem, the problem of suffering is, paradoxically, not how to avoid suffering but how to suffer, how to make of physical pain, personal loss, worldly defeat, or the helpless contemplation of others’ agony something bearable, supportable- something as we say, sufferable”.

          Going back to Berakhot 5a-b we learn that the rabbis struggle with the question of why we suffer. Their logic raises some tough questions for me[1]. First they suggest that if one is inflicted with pain, one needs to search for the reason;

          Raba (some say, R. Hisda) says: If a man sees that painful sufferings visit him,let him examine his conduct. For it is said: Let us search and try our ways, and return unto the Lord (Lamentation 3:40). 

          If he examines and finds nothing [objectionable], let him attribute it to the neglect of the study of the Torah. For it is said: Happy is the man whom Thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest out of Thy law (Psalm 94:12).

           If he did attribute it [thus], and still did not find [this to be the cause], let him be sure that these are chastenings of love. For it is said: For whom the Lord loveth He correcteth (Proverbs 3:12).

          I do not think that many of you will assume that we deserve suffering because we are loved by God. This is difficult to digest. How could a loving God inflict such suffering on a righteous person? Why would anyone accept this? How can suffering be a token of love…?

          Raba, in the name of R. Sahorah, in the name of R. Huna, says: If the Holy One, blessed be God, is pleased with a man, he crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] he crushed him by disease (Isaiah 53:10). …….

          And if he did accept them, what is his reward? He will see his seed, prolong his days.  And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand (Isaiah 53:10).

          OK. So one can suffer because God loves him so, and there will even be a reward in the next world. But, if I to continue to worship God with Torah study and prayer, how could I possibly do so when I suffer?

          For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The word 'covenant' is mentioned in connection with salt, and the word 'covenant' is mentioned in connection with sufferings… Even as in the covenant mentioned in connection with salt, the salt lends a sweet taste to the meat, so also in the covenant mentioned in connection with sufferings, the sufferings wash away all the sins of a man.

          The tool that is supposed to help deal with this problem is to vision how suffering is supposed to erase, or to repent for sins. I cannot accept the idea that sick people are sinners. I know plenty of righteous people who suffer, and bad people who flourish. Interesting enough, there are three stories following this long Gemara discussion. The cases of 3 sages who were sick and simply could not accept the suffering or the rewards. Here is only one story in 5b;

            R. Johanan once fell ill and R. Hanina went in to visit him. He said to him: Are your sufferings welcome to you? He replied: Neither they nor their reward. He  said to him: Give me your hand. He gave him his hand and he raised him. Why  could not R. Johanan raise himself? They replied: The prisoner cannot free himself from jail.

          There is a certain level of consciousness that promotes healing and endurance of suffering. It is very personal, and each one of us needs to tap into this well of theology. In many ways, if we re-examine what the rabbis teach us, we can see that a certain kind of acceptance, a Letting Go, could give some comfort.

What do you think of this kind of theology of suffering? What is yours?

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

---

[1] The following is inspired by a teaching of Rabbi Amy Scheinerman last weekend in NJ;