On Friendship—Part Two

Part Two: Talmud, Kabbalah, and My 7 Principles about the Nature of True Friends.
You can read Part One here.
A Source Sheet with all these texts and more is available here.

 
Did the Sages of old have “friends”— in the way we use the term? After all, the books that they wrote—the Mishnah and Talmuds and the classic Midrashim—have so much to say about the most important relationships in life:  parents and children, sisters and brothers, married partners, teachers and students, and so on. Surely they had some insights about the love between individuals who are not family?

Let’s start with a question of vocabulary. The Bible generally uses the term רעה when it speaks of friends; that’s the word that’s used to describe Job’s three friends who come to comfort him in his loss and suffering. This linguistic root means “associate, neighbor, fellow” in Biblical Hebrew and, provocatively, “yoke” in Arabic and Ge’ez (ancient Ethiopic).[1] Thus the word implies someone whose fate is “hitched” to our own, whose destiny is interconnected with ours.

The Rabbis prefer the term חבר / chaver. The root חבר appears many times in the Bible, but only in one or two instances might it mean something close to “friend,” such as Psalm 119:63: 

חָבֵ֣ר אָ֭נִי לְכל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יְרֵא֑וּךָ וּ֝לְשֹׁמְרֵ֗י פִּקּוּדֶֽיךָ׃
I am a chaver to all who fear You, to those who keep Your precepts.

But when the term appears in the Bible, it usually means bound together, as in Psalm 122:3 which celebrates Jerusalem:

יְרוּשָׁלַ֥͏ִם הַבְּנוּיָ֑ה כְּ֝עִ֗יר שֶׁחֻבְּרָה־לָּ֥הּ יַחְדָּֽו׃
Jerusalem built up! A city knit together [she-chubra lah yachdav].

 By preferring the term חבר, the Rabbis are saying that their chaverim are people whose lives are bound together with each other.

But that doesn’t mean that the Rabbis’ chaver meant “friend.” Oftentimes, a chaver is more accurately translated as “peer” or “classmate” or “fellow disciple of the Rabbis.” Chaverim were people who were similarly ideologically aligned to be part of the emerging class of Rabbinic Judaism, at a time (1st century BCE-3rd century CE) when there were other kinds of Judaisms that were competing for prominence.

So it’s not accurate to translate every appearance of the word chaver in the Mishnah or Talmud as “friend.”

Still, there are many occasions where the relationships between these peers—who together study Torah, celebrate and mourn, and share the meaning of Life—qualify as “friendships.”

Most famously there is a story of Honi the Circlemaker, a legendary figure who slept for 70 years and then tried to reintegrate himself into his community. He returns to his family home, only to discover that his grandchildren’s generation consider him a madman. Then he goes to the Beit Midrash, where the Rabbis are talking about Honi’s generation as if it were ancient history. There, too, he receives a chilly reception and he is not brought into the community. At the conclusion of this story, which preceded The Twilight Zone by 2,000 years, Honi gives up, prays for mercy, and dies. The story concludes with the words:

אוֹ חַבְרוּתָא אוֹ מִיתוּתָא
O chavruta o mituta
Either companionship or death! (Talmud, Ta’anit 23a)

The author of that story knew a thing or two about the desperate yearning people have for real human connections.

A striking description of friendship in Judaism comes from Maimonides’s commentary to the Mishnah. A well-known passage from Pirkei Avot says:

עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר
Get yourself a teacher [rav], and acquire for yourself a chaver… (Pirkei Avot 1:6)

Now, we might consider the word chaver here to mean what it usually means in classic Jewish literature: a peer, a committed study-partner. And that is probably what it means in its context. But Maimonides (1135-1204) takes this passage as a jumping-off point to create a taxonomy of friendships that sounds so… modern.

After spending some time discussing the unusual verb here—“acquire”—Rambam goes on to say:

.האוהבים ג' מינים: אוהב תועלת אוהב מנוחה ואוהב מעלה…
There are three types of friends:
A friend for one’s benefit [ohev to’elet],
A friend for one’s enjoyment [ohev m’nucha]
And a friend for one’s ultimate virtue [ohev ma’alah].

He then proceeds to explore the meanings of each of these categories. But before we go there, note that the word for “friend” has again evolved. Where the Bible used רעה  and the Sages employed חבר, Rambam prefers the word אוהב / ohev. If it didn’t sound so weird, we would translate the term as “lover”: a non-erotic sort of intimacy that true friends understand. Rambam already has tipped his hand: He’s not talking about “peers” or “associates”; he’s talking about two human beings who truly love one another.

Here's how he describes each of these three groups, in increasing levels of intimacy:

“A friend for one’s benefit / ohev to’elet”—This is like the friendship of two business associates, or of a king and his retinue.

[My comment: This may be Rambam’s lowest level, but it still connotes real friendships. Many of us might have warm and rich relationships with our co-workers. We may enjoy spending time with them, celebrating birthdays together or talking about our lives and our families. We probably don’t spend time with them outside of work, but still, when we’re together, we generally enjoy each other’s company.]

“A friend for one’s enjoyment / ohev m’nucha”—There are two subcategories: (a) a “friend for pleasure” and (b) a “friend for confidence.”

The “friend for pleasure” is like the friendship between men and women and so forth. Whereas a “friend for confidence” is a person to whom you can confide your soul. You don’t keep anything from that person, either in deed nor in speech. And you will make that friend know of all your affairs—the good ones and even the disgraceful ones—without fearing that you will experience any loss, either through the friend or through another person. When a person has such a level of confidence in another, you will find great enjoyment in the other’s words and in their friendship.

[I’m not sure why these aren’t distinct categories. Still, the “friend for pleasure” sounds like the sort of person whom we hang out with; someone whose company we enjoy as we share similar interests—like going to a ball game or a concert together. Life is more enjoyable when it’s shared with those sort of companions.

But maybe your buddy who goes to the game with you doesn’t want to hear about your fears about your career, or your marriage, or your finances.

The “friend for confidence” is on a different plane: someone with whom you can comfortably drop your pretenses, and to whom you can really open yourself up. As Rambam says, life is deeper and fuller when you have someone like this—someone who you can truly trust not to betray your confidences. And that sort of friendship is a blessing.

 
“A friend for one’s ultimate virtue / ohev ma’alah”— This is when the desire of both of them and their intention is for one thing alone, and that is the Good. Each one wants to be helped by the other in reaching this good for both of them together. And this is the friend which the Mishnah commands us to acquire, and it is like the love of a teacher for a student and of a student for the teacher.

This is something much rarer. This is a relationship in which each partner is committed to making the other a better a person. It is built on such a rock-solid foundation of trust that one can hear the criticism of the other, knowing that what she’s saying is reliable and not encrusted with her own inadequacies or schadenfreude.

A friend like this may come along only once in a lifetime—if we are lucky! Such a loyal and loving and selfless friend is something to be cherished.

Further: it may sound strange to us to hear the Rambam throw in the relationship between a student and teacher at the end. But that serves to show us how far removed we can be from the idealized model of the teacher and students that existed in classical Judaism. The teacher of Torah has only the student’s well-being in mind, and considers him as a whole entity and as a unique individual. And the teacher is better because of the relationship with the student.

There were times and places where that deepest degree of friendship was actively cultivated by likeminded spiritual seekers.

For instance, Lawrence Fine has written about a Kabbalistic community in late medieval Jerusalem called Beit El.[2] Here was a group of rigorous mystics who were determined to forge a unique community of prayer, study, and mystical contemplation with one another. In order to achieve spiritual excellence, they also swore eternal allegiance and friendship to one another—to exemplify the sort of the relationships that Rambam described in his highest level of friendship, above.

They went one step further: They wrote a “Ketubah” declaring their commitments to one another. (Literally, a Ketubah—a “marriage license”! Consider for a moment: If you were to write a Ketubah for the best friends in your life, what would be the terms of the relationship? What would be the commitments you’d make to each other?)

In part, the “Ketubah” says:

From now and forever after we are met together, we are associates, we are joined, we are bound to the others as if we were one person, we are companions in all matters of every kind. Each of us resolves to help, encourage, and give support to his associate, helping him to repent, rebuking him and participating in his tribulations, whether in this world or in the next, and in all the ways of faithfulness and ever more so…

It is a remarkable level of commitment: To trust the other so fully, to integrate so completely into each others’ lives, so as to make each other the best person they can possibly be and together to come to understand the reality of God. 

_______________________ 

In conclusion: I’ve written these entries because I’m increasingly aware of the blessings of friends in my life—and because of the crisis of loneliness that pervades so many people’s lives in our increasingly isolated times. I pray that each of us merits a true and treasured friend in this lifetime—and that each of us is capable of reciprocating such love to those who need us.

Judaism has a lot to say about the nature of friendship; we’ve only scratched the surface. But I’d sum it up this way:

Seven Principles from Judaism about Friendship (NG)

1.    A friend doesn’t disappear when times are rough. Friends don’t give up on the other person, and are committed to the relationship for the long haul.

2.    Even if friends don’t see each other often, or are separated by a long distance, a friend is present when needed.

3.    A friend doesn’t project his or her own issues onto the other, but listens carefully to what the other person needs.

4.    Friends aren’t afraid to share their shortcomings and failures with the other, because they know the other’s love will not falter and the other person can be trusted.

5.    Friends share delight in the other’s successes, and aren’t competitive, envious, or guilty of schadenfreude.

6.    When one makes a friend with this level of trust, it is a pleasure and delight to be in each other’s company.

7.    Real friends make the other person a better person. They’re not afraid to share criticism—as long as it clearly comes from a place of love. Conversely, a friend listens carefully to the criticism of the other, because the other person is trustworthy and committed to a friend’s well-being.

[1] Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, p.945.

[2] Lawrence Fine, Judaism in Practice: From the Middle Ages through the Early Modern Period (Princeton University Press, 2001), 210-214. The “ketubah” I’m discussing can be accessed on my Shavuot Source Sheet – check it out; it’s a fascinating document.

Closing One Book & Opening the Next: 3 Years of Daf Yomi

“An ignorant person cannot be pious / לֹא עַם הָאָרֶץ חָסִיד,” said the 1st century BCE sage Hillel (Pirkei Avot 2:6). No other religious faith of which I know would quite make such an astounding claim.

Like all polemical statements, it’s unfair and exaggerated, and it probably would be considered irredeemably elitist if not for two mitigating factors:

1.     We’re all ignorant, at least in the vast sea of wisdom known as Torah and knowledge of G-d. That’s why every volume of Talmud begins on page 2: to teach spiritual modesty. In the words of Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev, “However much a person may have learned, we should always remember that we have not even gotten to the first page!”

2.     The Torah is an open book; Judaism does not secret away wisdom. It’s available to anyone who seeks it out with an open heart, and in our generation there are more classic texts available at our fingertips than at any other time in human history—and in translation! It’s all there for the taking, waiting for each of us.

So there’s more to Hillel’s statement than meets the eye. It means that learning—acquiring the knowledge that potentially leads to wisdom—is a Mitzvah; that is, a primary religious activity.

A week or two ago, I (and many others) reached a personal milestone: the 3-year anniversary of the cycle of Daf Yomi, the daily study of a page of Talmud. It takes 7½ years to go through the entire Talmud, which is the size of a set of encyclopedias—so we’re not even halfway through the cycle.

Daf Yomi is a phenomenon. The idea was proposed in 1920 by Rabbi Moshe Menachem Mendel Spivak (b.1880), a Polish rabbi and renowned figure in the Torah world of Eastern Europe in the early 20th century. The idea was carried forward by Rabbi Meir Shapiro (b.1887), the head of a great Polish yeshiva in Lublin and a leader of European Orthodox Judaism.

These two visionaries promulgated the astonishing proposal that, all over the world, Torah students would study the same page of text on the same day. With Rabbi Shapiro’s spearheading, the daily regimen of Daf Yomi began on Rosh Hashanah in 1923. It’s now in its 14th cycle and approaching its centennial year, with tens of thousands of adherents—Orthodox and liberal Jews, women and men alike.

There are no days off: we read our daily page on Shabbat and even Yom Kippur; it accompanies me on family vacations, and so on. For some, it is a social endeavor: they learn with a partner or a group (known as studying in chevruta) and listen to online lectures or podcasts about the Daf Yomi. For me, it’s a more private experience, as I’ll explain.

Even though I’ve had a passion for Talmud throughout my adult life, I’d always kept Daf Yomi at arm’s length. And for good reasons.

First, there’s a whole world of Torah study out there besides the Talmud, and I have a short attention span and a wandering mind. So by committing to daily Talmud study, I feared I was missing out. What about Hasidut? And Midrash? And Zohar? And all the other pearls of Jewish spiritual literature?

Second, I’ve been involved in a one-on-one Talmud chevruta for over 20 years. My partner Ben and I used to scoff at the very idea of Daf Yomi. After all, he and I move so slowly when we read Talmud together, and try to go deeply into the meaning of the text, so our pace is unhurried. We might spend our lesson on just a few lines; a whole page could take us months to complete. And a whole volume of the Talmud can take us years! A page a day? Ha! How superficial the speediness of Daf Yomi must be, just to get through it all!

I must admit, some of that thinking remains—and Ben and I still proceed at the same glacial pace as ever. But I approach my Daf Yomi regime differently than my learning with Ben. I treat it as a spiritual discipline. I typically have 45-60 minutes to devote in the morning, and I do what I can. I read the Hebrew/Aramaic text, but when I get stuck, I have no problem looking to an English translation as a crutch.

And if the discourse on the page gets too bogged down in pilpul—the logic gymnastics that assume every contradiction must be resolved and every debate of the early Sages must be smoothed over—well, I move on. My goal here is breadth, not depth.

While I might have scoffed at “breadth, not depth” in the past, I see now that there’s an excitement about mapping the Talmud from the 10,000 foot view. I’m excited to know that, at some point 3¾ years from now, I’ll have visited and made notations on every page of my massive Talmud set that casts its shadow over my workspace.

There are days when it can be daunting. Last year, the Daf Yomi community around the world worked its way through 122 days/pages of Tractate Yevamot: over four months devoted to the arcana of the Torah’s laws of levirate marriage, the ancient law that if a man should die childless, his brother must marry his widow in order to produce an heir. It can get, shall we say, a bit esoteric.

On Tuesday, we’re completing another volume: Nedarim, 91 days/pages devoted to the biblical laws concerning the declaration of vows. It can be pretty obscure stuff, and it demands a certain amount of discipline to persist.

Yet the Talmud is famously ADD, and there are pearls to discover along the way. For instance, in one of many asides in Nedarim, we find this wonderful passage:

Rav Yosef said: A sick person will forget his learning.
Then Rav Yosef himself fell ill, and he forgot all of his learning. Abbaye restored it [by learning] with him. This is why we say [throughout the Talmud] that Rav Yosef would say, “I never heard this law,” and Abbaye would reply to him, “You taught this to us directly, and it was from this baraita [earlier teaching] that you said it.” (Nedarim 41a)

My comment: Like the Torah, the language of the Talmud can be concise and blunt. But embellishing this story in my head, it becomes very emotional! I picture Rav Yosef, the wizened teacher, whose capacities have diminished because of the ravages of age or illness (maybe a stroke?). Perhaps his other students have left him behind, leaving a disabled old man to his caretakers. Yet here is his student Abbaye—one of the giants in 3rd-4th century Babylonia—gently talking Torah with his teacher and reminding Rav Yosef of the divine wisdom that is inside him.  

And:

Rabbi Yochanan said: Initially Moses would study the Torah and forget it all, until it was given to him as a gift, as it is written (Exodus 31:18): When G-d finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, G-d gave Moses the two tablets of the Pact. (Nedarim 38a)

My comment: I can relate, Moses. I wish I had a fantastic memory and could retain all the wondrous things I’ve read in the past few years. But what a treasure books are: repositories of wisdom to go back and revisit…!

If all this sounds very rigorous, one of the first things I discovered was: I find that I wake up in the morning anticipating getting to my desk and to the Talmud, to resume the conversation with Rav Yosef and Abbaye, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, Hillel and Shammai, and all the others.

So, onward… to, um, tractate Nazir: (only!) 66 pages devoted (ostensibly) to the laws of those who take the Nazirite vow in an ascetic desire to be more spiritual. No matter how arcane the material, I know that the discipline Daf Yomi accords me is good, and I know that there will be jewels embedded in the road along the way.

Image: the opening side of the first page of the first volume of the Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 2a

The Ageism Behind the Movement for Biden Not to Run Again

If young people tell you, “Build!” and Elders tell you, “Tear down!”,
listen to the Elders and not the young people.
Because “building” for young people is, in fact, tearing down,
And “tearing down” for Elders is, in fact, building up.

—Talmud, Nedarim 40a

The murmuring is getting louder that it’s time for President Biden to read the writing on the wall.  His approval ratings are in the gutter, and a plurality of Democrats—if a New York Times/Siena College poll is to be believed—think that he should not run for reelection in 2024. The fear is if Biden chooses to run for a second term,  his weak candidacy could pave the way for another Trump or Trumpian administration in the White House (G-d preserve us).

There is a reasonable conversation to be had here. Politics demands pragmatism and in general it’s preferable to be in power rather than the opposition. It’s even possible that Biden could become a much more powerful world leader (as opposed to the cliché of a lame duck) by not running again, unfettered by relinquishing the need to have a constant eye on the polls and 2024. Maybe, maybe not.

But one aspect of the conversation concerns me deeply: The deep strain of ageism that is framing the debate. And we should call it out.

We might expect nasty caricatures about Joe as senile from the President’s enemies on the alt-right and generally in the sewage of social media. Bloggers, FoxNews, and late night comics love to replay news clips of Biden looking confused or struggling to speak clearly. Sometimes these are real, sometimes they are completely fabricated.

But what do we make of the blunt headline of Michelle Goldberg’s Times editorial, “Joe Biden is Too Old to be President Again”?

And, for that matter, what do we do with this month’s Times/Siena poll, which found that the #1 reason Democrats don’t want Biden to run again is “he’s too old”?

I find it incredibly troubling. It’s also a reminder that ageism is one remaining bigotry that is absolutely acceptable, even among progressives. (Well, I suppose there is also that other one.)

If Biden is cognitively compromised, that is something the public has the right to know. (Some have argued that Reagan was showing the effects of Alzheimer’s while he was in office, and chose to conceal it.) Of course, it is also known that Biden has always had a propensity for misspeaking, and he has struggled with stuttering all his life—so to what degree are the charges of “senility” in fact cruel mocking of his well-known disability?

I’m not in a position to know, but of this I am confident: old does not mean disabled—and to assert otherwise is ageist. For that matter, Elderhood should be seen as a virtue for leadership, not a disqualifier. (Reagan, you may recall, had the most perfect response to this.)

And I am confident that saying a person is “too old to be President” is offensive to Jewish values.

After all, the Torah tradition makes the case over and over again that not only is Elder status not a liability; in fact, it is a qualifier for leadership.

There are plenty of illustrations of this. In the Torah, “the Elders” are a sort of kitchen cabinet who are gathered around Moses, to give legitimacy to his leadership (starting in Exodus 3:16, and then repeatedly through Exodus and Numbers). Moses, himself, is said to be 80 years old at the time of the Exodus, and even after decades of leading the people through the desert, “his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated” (Deut. 34:7). 

But the starkest example of this is found in the Book of Kings. After the death of King Solomon, there is a succession battle for leadership. Solomon’s son Rehoboam—a crude and entitled man—presumes he will be the next king. But the leaders of the Ten Tribes to the north have many well-founded grievances, which they present to Rehoboam before his coronation. Rehoboam consults the Elders of his father’s kingdom, seeking their guidance about how to treat the northerners’ petitions.

The Elders give Rehoboam sage advice, no doubt learned from experience. They tell him: If you respond to the people’s grievances today with empathy and sensitivity, they will be loyal to you forever.

Unfortunately, Rehoboam has another group of advisors—a group of young “best and brightest.” They tell Rehoboam to tell the northerners to piss off. And he follows their advice—in fact, he responds to them with vulgarity. No wonder the northern tribes go off and find a new leader; essentially, “anyone but Rehoboam.”

The result of all this? Civil war, and a tragic national schism which haunts Israel for the rest of the Bible—and, I suppose, for the rest of history.  That’s what happens when the wisdom of experience is cast aside. (All this is in 1 Kings 12.)

The point of this impromptu Bible study is: Yes, of course age is sometimes accompanied by cognitive and physical decline. But Judaism broadly takes another tack. Elders deserve attention precisely because they’ve seen and experienced more in their years than you have. The Talmud puts it this way:

Rabbi Yochanan used to rise in the presence of elders—even non-Jewish ones—exclaiming, “How many experiences have happened to these people!” (Nedarim 33a)

 
Look, maybe Biden should run again and maybe he shouldn’t. What I know is: Saying he’s “too old to run” is obnoxious, foolish, and un-Jewish.

Obviously age should not be the determining factor for leadership. I’ve known young geniuses and old fools. Sometimes Elders do experience cognitive decline. But the presumption from Jewish tradition—and most spiritual and cultural traditions around the word—is that an elder has, through her experiences, gained a perspective that younger people don’t have.

We might call that perspective: wisdom.

Photo credit: The White House By The White House - https://www.instagram.com/p/BEvzFGwFwc2/, Public Domain

Don’t Kill Tsarnaev

I wrote this piece in 2015, on the two-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon terror attacks, which, as you’ll see in the essay, struck very close to home. With Friday’s Supreme Court announcement reinstating Tsarnaev’s death sentence, I returned to it and I’m re-posting here. I think it still holds up, and I’d be glad to hear your responses.

April 19, 2015

As we approach the anniversary of the Boston Marathon terrorist attacks, I’m thinking back to where I was at that fateful time.

After watching the early runners go past our home earlier in the morning, we set about our errands for the day. Most important was buying a suit for my son, who was becoming Bar Mitzvah in two months’ time. That’s where we were—in the suit store—when word started to spread: “There was a bomb at the finish line.”  Suddenly, the all the strangers in the store—customers and employees, adults and kids—were weirdly bound together as a community, straining to get details as they came through in real time, as happens once in a thankfully rare while when the world’s news are so powerful or so local that it makes everyone stop in their tracks.

The recent guilty verdict and the impending sentencing of Tsarnaev, as well as tomorrow’s Marathon, spark these memories and also prompt the question of whether this terrorist deserves the death penalty.

Opposition to capital punishment is one issue where consistent liberals sometimes waver. Despite the well-known facts that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, and despite the fact that it costs the state exorbitant amounts of money, many people find they cannot harbor any  mercy for perpetrators of the most vicious crimes.  And anti-death penalty advocates simply must understand that and take those feelings into account.

I remember being a freshman in college during the Dukakis-Bush presidential debates in the fall of 1988, when the Bush camp was effectively painting Gov. Dukakis as a wimp. At one of the debates, Dukakis, an opponent of state executions, was asked how he would feel if it his wife had been raped and murdered. (Nice question.) Dukakis hemmed and hawed, and many pundits agreed that he lost the debate and showed he was out of touch with the American mainstream.

I remember even then, in my dorm room, jumping up and down and saying “Let me answer that question!”  The answer should have been:  Of course I’d want him dead! Of course, of course—a thousand times over! But: There’s a reason why in our judicial system, and any fair judicial system, the victims of crimes don’t get to determine the sentences of the convicted. That’s because victims naturally (and humanly) want more than justice; they want vengeance. And vengeance often runs counter to a society that strives to be marked by justice.

So where is Judaism on the death penalty? At first blush, the Torah seems to endorse capital punishment. There are many crimes—not just murder—in which the plain reading of the Torah calls for the criminal to be put to death.  (The Shabbat violator is put to death. So are witches. And incorrigible children!) The Talmud, in tractate Sanhedrin, describes the four different methods of execution that the Torah endorses:  stoning, burning, being slain by a sword, and strangling. (Never, it is important to point out, did ancient Israel employ crucifixion.)

However, if you really want to know what’s Jewish about a certain idea, you can’t just quote verses from the Torah. You have to look at the history of how that concept got interpreted and filtered in Jewish sources throughout the ages. The Torah, for instance, says that an incorrigible son must be put to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The Talmud, however, wrings this notion dry. The law of the incorrigible son (ben sorer u’moreh) remains on the books; the Torah, after all, is G-d’s law, but its interpretation is given to human beings. And the Sages proceed to define the set of circumstances in which a person might fit the punishable category of “incorrigible” so tightly, so narrowly, that they can triumphantly declare that no such verdict “ever happened or ever will happen;” it is one of the laws that was simply given to us for the Mitzvah of studying it and learning from it (Sanhedrin 71a). They read the law out of existence!

In my understanding, they do the same thing with the death penalty. First, we must acknowledge that Talmudic law is religious, not civil, law—and thus, no Jewish religious court has executed anybody for anything in 2,000 years, since the days of sacrifices when the Temple stood (Sanhedrin 41a).  Furthermore, there are many crimes, such as violating Shabbat, for which the Torah may ostensibly permit the death penalty, but the Rabbis forbid it—saying, if G-d wants to execute, let G-d be the one who sheds the blood! (There’s a great midrash in Pesikta d’Rav Kahana 11:19 where Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha tells his colleague, a would-be executioner, that rather than kill a killer, “You should flee to the end of the world and let the Owner of the garden come and weed out His Own thorns!”)

Most telling of all is a conversation that is recorded in the Mishna (Makkot 1:10):

A court that puts one person to death in 7 years is called a murderous one.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says:  Even once in 70 years!

Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say:  If we had been in the Sanhedrin, no death sentence ever would have been passed! To which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel objected, saying: If so, you would have multiplied the number of murderers in Israel.

A serious passage – it shows that even in the days of these sages (about 1900 years ago), the death penalty was controversial. These aren’t incidental; each of them, especially Rabbi Akiva, is a dominant figure in Jewish history.  And Rabbi Akiva himself, that great sage and political revolutionary, found that a human court could never raise itself to the threshold that justifies putting a defendant to death.

There are many reasons to oppose the death penalty. I agree with those who say that eliminating state executions puts us on the side of civilization. The death penalty cheapens and coarsens our entire society, and puts us on the wrong side of history, in the company with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Syria. It is demonstrably racist and classist. And The Innocence Project has shown us, time and time again, that we get it wrong—and I concur that it is better to let 99 guilty men to go free than to kill one innocent man.

I suppose the most Jewishly authentic policy (Rabbi Akiva’s policy) might be: have the death penalty on the books, but never use it.  But that ideal might be too subtle and nuanced for our times; instead, let’s do away with its archaic barbarism completely.  Let Tsarnaev live—with all his infamy and disgrace. 

In the Talmud, A Weirdly Sobering Voice from My Own Not-So-Distant Past

Each chapter of the Talmud ends with some beautiful words from the editor: הדרן עלך / Hadran Alakh / “We will return to you.” It’s a reminder that the massive volumes of the Talmud are not read like any other books, but rather are something to be reviewed and revisited. When you come back to a certain chapter, you discover insights that you never noticed the first time around, because you’ve presumably grown and changed and are reading the words in new and different ways.

So with the tradition of Hadran in mind, I often write notes to myself in the margins as reminders for the next time I’ll be back on this page.

All of which is to say, this morning, I found a note to myself that was a sobering signpost of where we are in the world.

Some context: I learn the Talmud in two ways. I’m one of tens of thousands who are doing Daf Yomi, the one-page-a-day cycle of reading the Talmud which takes 7+ years to navigate (we just marked the two-year anniversary of this cycle!). I approach Daf Yomi as a spiritual discipline each morning, before I read the news or email or the day’s responsibilities; I give it 45-60 minutes and often simply plow through sections that are especially dense or obscure.

I also have been learning Talmud with a chevruta (study partner), Rabbi Ben Levy, which we’ve been doing for over 20 years! And our approach is the exact opposite of Daf Yomi: we read closely and meticulously, and give ourselves plenty of opportunity for reflection and free association. It sometimes takes us years to finish a single volume of the Talmud.

So, this morning I’m reading the Daf Yomi, Megillah 31, which Ben and I studied more intensively in the past. The page discusses the liturgical readings from the Torah that the Rabbis selected for the various holidays throughout the year. And in that discussion, we find this paragraph:

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: עֶזְרָא תִּיקֵּן לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרִין קְלָלוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים קוֹדֶם עֲצֶרֶת, וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה קוֹדֶם רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּכְלֶה הַשָּׁנָה וְקִלְלוֹתֶיהָ

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Ezra enacted for the Jewish people that they should read the Torah portion of the curses that are recorded in Leviticus (Lev. 26:14-46) before Shavuot, and the Torah portion of the curses that are recorded in Deuteronomy (Deut. 28:15-69) before Rosh Hashanah.

Why? Abbaye (4th C sage in Babylonia) said—and some say it was Resh Lakish (3rd C sage in the Land of Israel) who said it: In order that the year, and its curses, should come to an end!

(The next paragraph explains that Shavuot, at the beginning of the summer, can also be considered a “New Year,” just like Rosh Hashanah.)

There’s lots to say about those words. But what leapt out at me was a note that I had written in the margins when I last read this page with Ben. There I wrote: “I’m reading this on 12/30/2020, the year of the Covid-19 pandemic.” Look how naïve I was! I figured that it was unique that I was studying this text on the cusp of a New (secular) Year, and it resonated with me. Because surely when I would return to this page in the future, the curse of the pandemic would be a sorrowful memory of a lousy time.

My own voice from the past, in a private message to my future self.

Like so many others, I’m so tired of all of this—of irresponsible responses to the virus, of the stupid politicization of public health policies which should be one thing all of us have in common, of these frigging masks, and of people I care about being sick or dying or in mourning. Tired of it—but trudging forward and determined to do the right and responsible behaviors, for the sake fo those who are most vulnerable.

 Today I wrote another note in the margin of Megillah 31b: “And again, on Daf Yomi 1/12/22, while Covid still endures.”

I will return to you, Megillah 31. And, G-d willing, when I return to you, the curses of this damned pandemic will have come to an end, a distant memory.

One Year's Passing Since "That Day"

.וְכָל הֵיכָא דְּאָמְרִינַן ״בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם״, הַהוּא יוֹמָא הֲוָה
Anywhere in the text where we simply say “That Day”—it’s referring to that day.
(Talmud, Berachot 28a)

March 10 is an auspicious and melancholy anniversary. It’s the date in my mind when everything changed for us.

It was on March 10, 2020—it was the afternoon of Purim in the Jewish calendar—and I was sitting with a group of students, planning an upcoming Holocaust-education program for our community.  It was late afternoon, and of course we were all aware of the encroaching pandemic and the murmuring that college campuses were closing down. And then it happened:  we all received the email simultaneously from the university President that informed us that Babson was shutting down, too.

Remember how young and innocent we all were back then? The initial outreach from the school encouraged students to take all their stuff with them when they left campus in a few days; it was Spring Break. The hope was that we would all be able to return in two or three weeks. Certainly, we figured, we would be back by Passover. Okay, by May 1. Okay… by graduation?  And everything kept getting pushed back by a week, then a month, and so on…

None of us imagined then that we’d be marking the one-year anniversary of staying-at-home, social distancing, and Zoom fatigue. Let alone well over a half-million Americans dead, due in no small part to the incompetent machinations of a self-serving federal government.

But here we are. And while some have told me that it’s “depressing” to mark such an anniversary, it is not my intention to be a downer. While I yearn for the physical presence of my friends and family as much as anyone, I draw inspiration from the remarkable resilience that I’ve seen from many people.

The role of technology in our lives has been incredibly valuable; just imagine the strain of staying at home if it were just a few years ago, before videoconferencing technology was as smooth and effective as it is now. For me, personally, this has been especially true. I had cochlear implant surgery in August 2019, and can actually hear with 90% clarity for the first time in many years. If the pandemic had struck just two years ago, I would have been rather hopeless in all of my Zoom classes, meetings, and interactions. I would have been much more isolated. I would have been in terrible trouble.

The anniversary is a useful time to reflect on “that day” – the moment when everything changed in our lives, and all of our responses and behaviors seem to be re-oriented around those changes.

The Talmud has a “that day”—it was the moment of a political shakeup that occurred among the Tanna’im in the 2nd century, when Rabban Gamliel was deposed (temporarily, it turns out) from community leadership and the entire structure of the Academy was democratized. On “that day,” new books were written, new rules were put into place, and new leadership (Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah) was installed.

But if a moment in Israel 1800 years ago is too esoteric, consider that each of us has a “that day” as well, depending on what generation we belong to:

The JFK assassination, of course. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin. 9/11, G-d knows. A diagnosis, a car accident…

And probably good things as well: weddings; births; b’nai mitzvah, certainly.  New jobs, new loves, moving to a new home…

Days when everything changed, for better or for worse.

Someday soon, G-d willing, these newly acquired Covid-behaviors will recede. We’ll be in the company of friends and even strangers again. The masks will come down, or at least loosen up. We’ll hug our distant family members. We’ll travel without reservation. There will no longer be daily Corona tolls in the media.

And when that happens, I hope we’ll remember the lessons that we’ve learned since “That Day.” Lessons about caring for the most vulnerable among us; about using technology for good; about how precious it is to be in the presence of people we care about. If it’s true that “everything will be different,” let’s pray that those differences will be to make us better, and that they will be for blessings.

Do you have a “That Day” in your life? You’re invited to tell us about it in the comments section below.

Lag BaOmer: The Day the Curve Flattened

Today is Lag BaOmer, the 33rd day in the 50-day stretch between Passover and Shavuot.

Lag BaOmer has always been shrouded in mystery. Why are these days, when spring is sprouting, considered to be a time of semi-solemnity? And why is there a little oasis in this melancholy time—the 33rd day—for joy and celebration? 

The Talmud only speaks about this with riddles. Apparently there was some sort of enigmatic plague that struck the students of Rabbi Akiva in the 2nd century CE, at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome. The nature of the plague is obscure (askara, says the text: croup, or diphtheria), leading some commentators to speculate about whether or not it was a literal plague (i.e, that the Romans were the plague):

אמרו שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא מגבת עד אנטיפרס וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה…תנא כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת אמר רב חמא בר אבא ואיתימא ר' חייא בר אבין כולם מתו מיתה רעה מאי היא א"ר נחמן אסכרה

Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of students from Givat to Antipras, and all of them died in a single period of time—because they did not treat one another with respect.  It was taught: All of them died between Passover and Shavuot.
Rabbi Hama bar Abba, and some say Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin, said: All of them died a terrible death. What was it? Rabbi Nachman said: askara.
—Yevamot 62b

Note that there’s nothing here about the 33rd day. Lag BaOmer only appears in later texts. According to post-Talmudic sources, the plague “ceased” or “ebbed” on the 33rd day in between Pesach and Shavuot; it’s still not clear. But the tradition arose that it should be a minor holiday, a mini-day of joy in the midst of a more sober time. 

From there, the tradition piled on. For Kabbalists, Lag BaOmer became a day of celebration for its mystical significance, including its connections to Rabbi Akiva and his premier student Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, both of whom are considered mystics par excellence. And like virtually every other holiday, modern Israel has invested this day with new meanings and customs—especially, in normal years, building bonfires in the fields.

Frankly, all this has always seemed rather obscure to me. Don’t get me wrong, I celebrate Lag BaOmer and love it. But the reasons are still bewildering. What really happened during the days of Rabbi Akiva? Why a happy day in the middle of the period?  Who knows? 

But this year, it seems to me that the original meaning of the season has a new resonance. 

Imagine that in Rabbi Akiva’s time, there was a real, literal plague that ravaged the countryside.

And imagine, too, that the suffering was exacerbated by those who blamed others for the plague, who spread conspiracy theories, who mocked their neighbor’s fears and concerns, and who scorned those who tried to take public health seriously? Is this so far removed from the Talmud’s assertion that “they died because they did not treat one another with respect”? 

And what if Lag BaOmer was the day that the plague’s “curve was flattened,” so to speak? The day when finally people were able to see that there was a light at the end of the tunnel, and these days of sickness would eventually come to an end, as long as personal responsibility and ethical leadership were allowed to prevail?

Imagine Lag BaOmer as tradition’s way of saying: keep up the good practices that you are observing and this plague won’t last forever. Keep counting the days, each one is a precious step towards a cure.

Note that the plague didn’t end on the 33rd; there were still weeks to go of thoughtful containment and protection from whatever was devastating the community. But it was a day of hope: a time to realize that, in a few weeks’ time, the barley would be harvested, people would be fed, and life would someday go on—hopefully, not “back to normal”, but with lessons learned. 

When the light is visible on the horizon, it is appropriate to pause and celebrate. It’s even appropriate to kindle our own fires, bonfires in the fields to light up the darkness.

We're Doing the 10 Plagues All Wrong—Part Two

The Maggid section of the Haggadah—the lengthiest part of the seder, the section which retells the story of the Exodus—culminates with the description of the so-called “Ten Plagues.” As I wrote earlier, the idea of the “plagues” is misunderstood, and that has led to a lot of misguided creativity around this part of the seder.

None of that is to say that there aren’t powerful and important lessons regarding the ritual here. In some ways, this is one of the most provocative sections of the entire seder.

When we reach this passage, every community that I’ve encountered has a similar sort of ritual. Upon reciting the name of each  “plague,” a drop of wine is removed from each of our cups. (Many also remove drops of wine before the 10 Plagues: 3 drops at the verse from Joel 3:3  “...Blood [דָם] and fire [אֵשׁ] and pillars of smoke [וְתִימֲרוֹת עָשַׁן]”; and 3 times at the acronym for the Plagues [דצ"ך עד"ש באח"ב], for a total of 16 drops.)

There are variations about how this removal takes place. Many people use their fingers, taking out wine from their glass drop by drop. Perhaps this custom alludes to the יד חזקה / yad chazakah / the “mighty hand” with which G-d redeemed the Israelites (see Exodus 6:1, 13:9; and especially Deuteronomy 26:8, which the Haggadah is citing, as well as Deut. 34:12, the last verse of the Torah).  Other people tip their glasses, spilling drops one at a time. Some use a utensil to remove the drops.

But the most important thing is to be clear about what this ritual means.

A kiddush cup full of wine is a symbol of joy and celebration. To reduce the wine in our glass symbolizes reducing our joy.

Why do we do this? The 15th Century commentator Don Yitzhak Abarbanel said that our joy is not complete as we recall the suffering of the Egyptians as we made our way to freedom. He quotes Proverbs 24:17:  “When your enemy falls, do not rejoice...”

That is a breathtaking statement.  Recall that when we read “Egyptians” in the text, what we’re saying is:  Nazis. Inquisitors. Hamas. Baby-killers, as the midrash makes clear. The most bloodthirsty oppressors that have slimed their way onto the stage of human history. 

And yet, when we consider the victories that gave us our freedom, we recognize that our enemies suffered, too.

It recalls as astounding passage from the Talmud that tells how the angels wished to rejoice at the moment of the Splitting of the Sea, but G-d silenced them:

שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא שמח במפלתן של רשעים. דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמן אמר ר' יונתן... באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לומר שירה לפני הקב"ה אמר להן הקב"ה מעשה ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה לפני.

The Holy and Blessed One does not rejoice at the fall of the wicked.
Thus Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan:... At that  moment [when the Egyptians were drowning in the Sea,] the ministering angels intended to sing before the Holy and Blessed One.
The Holy One said, “The work of My hands is drowning in the sea, and you would sing before me?!”

This is an astonishing idea. Our tradition is demanding that, at the moment of deliverance from suffering, we set aside any sort of triumphalism. Instead, we are called upon to recognize the very human-ness of our enemy.

To be sure, these passages do not apologize for our victory. We don’t regret that we were brought out of Egypt, just as we don’t regret the integrity and passion and ferociousness with which we’ve fought any just war in history. Evil must be vanquished, sometimes only through greater force.  

What the tradition does assert is that we can’t allow ourselves to dehumanize our enemies. They, too, are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. They suffered when their water turned to blood, their fields were devoured by locusts, and their firstborn lay dead in their beds. They suffered when we fought back in the ghettos and the trenches, and when they and their children died on the battlefields. 

Enemies are real, but perhaps recognizing each other’s inherent humanity is a cautious step towards a world with... well, a bit fewer enemies. 

Can we live up to this standard that our tradition sets? I’m not saying I can, not yet. The desire for justice... which sometimes is indistinguishable from the desire for vengeance against those who have hurt us... is just too strong. But that’s what makes this spiritual challenge so compelling—our highest values are what we should reach for, not what we already comfortably accept.  

This is the ritual of the drops at the Ten Plagues.  It’s radical and challenging, and it deserves a moment of meditation and reflection before we tip our cups.  

Miles Davis and the Art of Living

Miles Davis (1926-1991) was one of the most important American musicians of all time—completely reinventing musical categories three or four times over during his turbulent career. Here’s the opening track of his 1971 album A Tribute to Jack Johnson, called “Right Off”:

Miles was a great trumpeter, but he was even more important as a bandleader, putting together some of the greatest groups in history. And he was known for giving cryptic instructions to his players, like a Zen master. He’d say, “Don’t just play what’s there, play what’s not there.” And: “Sometimes you have to play for a long time in order to play like yourself.” And: “There are no mistakes.”

There’s a moment in “Right Off” that illustrates Miles’s attitude of “no mistakes.” And in this instrumental drama, there’s a spiritual lesson.  You can hear the moment—Miles’s entrance after a dramatic introduction of drums, bass, and electric guitar—between 2:00 and 2:20 in the audio clip.

Here’s how jazz critic Paul Tingen describes what we’re hearing:

At 1:38 the guitarist takes down the volume, and at 2:11 he modulates to B-flat to heighten the dramatic effect of Miles’s entry. However, the bass player misses the modulation, and carries on playing in E.

In other words, the two principle players are now accidentally playing in different keys. It’s a train wreck. Surely they should stop and start the take over?

But that’s where Miles’s genius – his flexibility and his careful listening to his fellow musicians – comes in. Tingen continues:

In the middle of this clash of tonalities, Miles decides to make his entrance.

He starts by playing a D-flat, the minor third in the key of B-flat and the major sixth in the key of E. It is an ingenious choice – because the note is effective in either key. Miles than plays twelve staccato B-flat notes, phrasing them on the beat to drive the band on, and also as if to nudge [Michael] Henderson [the bass player] towards B-flat tonality. Henderson gets the message, comes into line by modulating to B-flat, and Miles carries on, giving one of the most commanding solo performances of his career.

 Tingen explains what’s so stunning about this:

Most musicians would have regarded the point when the 2 musicians were clashing in such incompatible keys as E and B-flat as an embarrassing mistake and would have stopped the band… Very few would have considered, or have had the courage, to come in at such a moment. And even fewer would have been able to make it into a resounding success.

Miles could have stopped the music, corrected the musicians, and started over. Instead, he picks the perfect note that takes the so-called mistake and makes it art.

Abraham Joshua Heschel told us that our task is to construct our lives as works of art, and what Miles does is illustrative of this.  On these days before Yom Kippur, we are tasked with having the courage to look honestly inward, reflecting on our choices and our deeds and their consequences. 

One important lesson of the Season of Teshuvah is that we don’t get to go back and erase our actions. They are done, with a ripple effect that has gone out into the world.  Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur are not spiritual erasers, blotting our sins from the Book of Life.

But the Days of Awe are something else:  They are opportunities to transform those deeds and shape them. Every living soul is a work-in-progress. It’s been said: No one can make a brand-new start, but anyone can make a brand-new ending.

That’s what’s so empowering about Yom Kippur. It’s only for people who make mistakes. Perfect people are not invited:

 Rabbi Abbahu says: In the place where a baal teshuvah [one who has turned back to a good and decent path] stands, even a completely righteous person cannot stand. [Talmud, Berachot 34b]

Think about it this way: Teshuvah is one of 613 Mitzvot. That means if a person is perfect and has not sinned – then she can only do 612 of them! The rest of us get the upper hand!

To take what we’ve damaged and mangled and turn it into art: that’s the trick. Miles knew it; so did the Talmud. Maybe this year Yom Kippur can spur more of us in that direction. 

Quotes are from Paul Tingen, Miles Beyond: The Electric Explorations of Miles Davis, 1967-1991 (New York: Billboard Books, 1991), p.106.

Why Do Parents Cry When Their Children Leave for College?

The Talmud (Shabbat 151b-152a) recognizes that people cry different types of tears. There are tears of sorrow and pain, of relief and catharsis. According to the Talmud, some kinds of weeping are beneficial and some are not.

Today, as Heidi and I bring our oldest child to his first year of college, the Rabbis’ observation seems especially insightful. Of course we are tearful. But we are well aware that there are many reasons why parents may cry when their children leave for college.

Some parents may cry because of the realization that their family structure will now be different. Sure, their son or daughter will return home in the future, even many times, but with less and less frequency as the years pass. And inevitably the day will come when their parents’ house is no longer what their children mean when they say the word “home.”

Some parents may be drawn back to the hopes and dreams and promises they made when their child arrived eighteen-or-so years ago, when life was nothing but potential waiting to be realized. And we may think about how wildly divergent life’s path actually turned out to be.

Some may weep because of the realization that time passes so quickly, and that the sweet toddler who reached for your hand is now, all too suddenly, an adult. 

Some may cry because of undifferentiated longing for their child. That is to say, their tears are not for their child’s new beginnings, but because of the loss of the parent’s own youth.

And some tears come from a new vulnerability, a realization that we can’t be there to shield and process and interpret every challenge, failure, and risk that our children are about to discover. When we discover how vulnerable we really are, the tone of our prayers changes, as Dylan identified so perfectly:

My only prayer
is if I can’t be there
Lord protect my child.

And then there is the sensation of wanting just a little bit more time. There’s a great joke from The Simpsons about the last day of school: As the last bell rings, the children leap for the door and the freedom of the summer. Then a teacher exclaims, “WAIT! You didn’t learn about how World War II ended!” The students freeze. The teacher peers into a book. “We won!” The students shout “Hooray!” and now, fully satiated with the teacher’s wisdom, can enjoy their vacation. 

I know the teacher’s feeling. As we drive away from the university, the car one seat emptier, I want to hit the brakes and say, “WAIT! There’s still something I haven’t taught you!”

But that moment is gone. What we hope for, of course, is that our children leave home with the spiritual and emotional confidence to navigate life’s inevitable disappointments and challenges. We hope that they have pride in their Jewish identity, and the knowledge that the prerequisite of functioning in a multicultural society is an assurance of yourself and where you come from.

But we also hope for something more than pride: We hope that we have given them literacy in Jewish wisdom and competence in Jewish practice to allow Judaism to inform and deepen their lives every single day. We hope that we have encouraged them to develop unquenchably thirsty minds built upon a solid bedrock of faith.

The Talmud understood that tears are complex, and the mixture of many conflicting emotions at the same time is what all of life’s most poignant moments are about. As a strange city recedes in the car’s rearview mirror and we return home, we appreciate the complexity of those feelings. We’re full of confidence, pride, and excitement for new beginnings. And we utter a short prayer, perhaps the most honest and basic prayer that there is: “God, protect our child.”