• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Good Shmood! Well-Digging as a New Paradigm for Purposeful Jewish Living Rabbi Daniel Cotzin Burg, Beth Am Synagogue Parashat Toldot, 5775. There are a few statements we pulpit rabbis hear from congregants again and again. They’re quite frequently some kind of confession of something the speaker either feels he or she should be doing but isn’t or shouldn’t be doing but is… or, even more often, it’s something this person assumes I feel he or she should or shouldn’t be doing! Often it just kind of slips out: “Rabbi, I was at Arundel Mills last Saturday morning...” “Rabbi, I had the best crab cakes recently.” “Rabbi, you have to try this new Steakhouse… Oh wait, you probably can’t eat anything there.” But the statement I hear most frequently – and that, unlike the others, really makes me sad is: “Rabbi, I’m just not a good Jew.” What does this mean, “I’m not a good Jew?” What is a “good Jew” and why do so many of us feel we don’t measure up? Part of the problem is there’s a tendency to think of halakhah or observance as if we’re comparing ourselves to something fixed. There is this thing called Tradition (capital “T”). It is finite, it is static, it is either predetermined or determined at some point long ago, and we are meant to measure ourselves against that finite, fixed thing. You might think it quite benign, but this notion of the Jewish yardstick, in my estimation, has caused quite a bit of trouble. It leads Jews who feel they do measure up to question the authenticity of anyone who doesn’t. When the Israeli Rabbanut refuses to accept conversions done by non-Orthodox rabbis, this is what’s going on. But, perhaps even worse, this attitude begets scores of Jews who feel they themselves don’t measure up – to which they react in one of three ways: with guilt about what they’re not doing (or what they are but shouldn’t), with resentment toward what they perceive to be an inaccessible tradition, or apathy toward an irrelevant one. But the yardstick claim is fallacious, perhaps even a bit disingenuous. In part this is because halakhah is, by definition, fluid, unfixed and developing all the time. Admittedly, this is a point of contention among different streams of Judaism. Some would say halakhah, which implies movement, means walking with God (lalechet bidrachav) and toward specific goals. Vertically speaking, it’s about ascending a fixed ladder of mitzvot, standing tall against the yardstick of Jewish tradition. But others would say halakhah is about walking with God and also with the tradition. We change as we interact with the mitzvot, and the law changes and evolves with us. Yes, the Torah, Talmud, and legal codes are filled with mitzvot – the fundamental “do’s” and “do not’s” of Jewish praxis. And, I won’t lie to you; there are better choices and worse ones. There’s a reason I don’t eat crab – and it’s not that I don’t know what I’m missing! But we have to be careful how we describe successful Jewish living. And believing that eating treif makes you a “bad Jew” is, I believe, both inaccurate and unhelpful. “But come on Rabbi,” you might be thinking. “There are clearly examples of bad Jews.” The Israelis, who set fire to a Palestinian boy this summer, Yigal Amir, Baruch Goldstein – aren’t these definitively “bad Jews?” And aren’t there “good Jews” as well? All of us know people, and some of you are people, who quietly go about improving the lives of others. These people give tzedakah generously, support the synagogue, volunteer their time, are honest in business and teach Jewish values to children and grandchildren. Don’t these people deserve to be called “good Jews?” The obvious answer is “yes.” Yigal Amir is a bad Jew; the terrorists who murdered four rabbis and one Druze in a Jerusalem synagogue this week, were bad Muslims. Religions exist, in part, to promulgate 1 concrete ideas about right and wrong. Jewish people who are, by and large, bad people are also, I’m willing to say, bad Jews. But, if you think about it, this just proves my point. Because ethical behavior is accurately categorized as good or bad. Bikkur Holim and tzedakah are “good.” But is putting on tefillin “good?” Is observing shatnez “good?” Is studying Torah or not cooking this afternoon or waiting three hours after a burger to eat ice cream categorically “good?” Remember, the rasha on Pesach is called that because of how he comports himself, not what he eats. So we need a new paradigm, a new way of thinking about what it is to be positively, purposefully and authentically Jewish. What’s the current paradigm? When observant Jews describe being devoted to halakhah we often say we are shomer mitzvot, in keeping kosher we are shomer kashrut and when observing Shabbat we are shomer Shabbos. A “shomer” is a “guard” and it’s a perfectly accurate way of describing adherence to Jewish law. But it also conjures up certain images of strict piety, of ritual fastidiousness – it’s about measuring up to that yardstick. Lawrence Kushner, prolific author and a highly regarded Reform rabbi suggests a different term for being devoted to Shabbat. “Perhaps it is for us,” he writes, “to create a new standard of Shabbat behavior called ‘Zakhor Shabbat.’ One who is Zokheir Shabbat would remember throughout the day’s duration that it was Shabbat (not so easy as it sounds).” Kushner coins the phrase for good reason: while Deuteronomy’s version of the fourth commandment uses the word shamor, the Exodus version says zakhor et yom haShabbat vayekad’sheihu – “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” I love this idea of being Zokheir Shabbat, but I believe it’s ultimately insufficient. To remember Shabbat, to simply be aware of its existence, honors its spirit, its soul, but it doesn’t pay enough attention to the body, the particulars of Shabbat as observed by Jews across zip-codes, nations or centuries. Kushner writes, “We say to one another, ‘Do anything you like – as long as you remember it is Shabbat.’ Because that will ensure that whatever you do, it will be likh-vod-ha-Shabbat, “for the honor of Shabbat.” The problem is that Kushner’s model while not morally relativistic is ritually so. And ritual relativism is problematic too. If it’s all form and no function, all broad categories with no substance, then the categories – of Shabbat or Kashrut for example – cease to stand for anything. When everything is kosher, nothing is. An absurd example (and this is true): There was a national leader in the Reform movement when I was a kid who would remark: “You know, when I walk through the buffet line, and I take shrimp and put it on my plate, I am keeping Kosher, because I’m aware that I’m making deliberate choices about food.” Not being Reform Jews we need a different paradigm. Another approach is one that has gained some traction in Israel. You’ve heard the term Ba’al T’shuvah? It means “Master of the answer(s).” It’s how those who, as adults, become Orthodox in their observance define themselves. “I’m not FFB (frum from birth), I’m Ba’al T’shuvah.” Again, our yardstick – there are fixed answers and I now have them – at least more-so than I used to. In Israel, though, someone who adopts Orthodoxy or Hareidi practice is called Hozer L’Teshuvah, one who has “returned to the answers.” More humble than the other term but still problematic. But, there’s this trend among some in Israel to call themselves “Hozer L’She’elah” those who have returned not to the answers but to the questions. I also very much like this approach. After all, we are a people more of questions than of answers. On Pesach we are required to ask questions. We’re called Yisrael, God- Wrestlers, those who struggle with belief and tradition. The art of Jewish study is perhaps best represented by the chevrutah, a dyad of learners engaging in a fierce battle to – through their 2 questioning of one another – unearth the hidden secrets in our most sacred texts. Questioning is very Jewish. Einstein called it “holy curiosity.” “…curiosity,” he writes, “has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when contemplating the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of the mystery every day. The important thing is not to stop questioning; never lose a holy curiosity.” \ So I like Hozer L’She’elah. But the problem here is similar to Kushner. By claiming one extreme pole over another, we limit ourselves too. There are answers in Judaism and not just ethical ones. We can navigate the tricky waters of tefilah, for example, question the wording of some prayers, even change some of them – like praising God sh’asani b’tzalmo, “for creating us in the divine image” instead of the more traditional rendering “sh’lo asani isha, for not making me a woman.” But it would be tragic for the entire matbeah tefilah, the whole framework of Jewish prayer, to be called into question, to be subject to individual approval. Our siddur is a carefully rendered, meticulously edited, collection of poetry and prose, of Psalms and hymns that, as a comprehensive text, offers a robust and balanced theology.

Load more

  4

Copy Link