Morning Yoga

A few weeks ago, a friend asked about others' personal yoga practices for the morning. I knew he was interested in physical exercises, stretches and such, and I do not do that, so I did not reply, but I've continued to think about the topic.

For years I've found two relatively short prayers very helpful for my morning focus. In the extended sense, they are my morning yoga. The two prayers are Modeh Ani ("I am grateful"), and the Sh'ma / Ve'Ahavta ("Hear O Israel" / "You Shall Love"). It so happens that the amount of time necessary for saying those prayers is exactly the time it took me everyday to walk from my front door to breakfast at my previous school. Nowadays I say the prayers on my morning dog walk, and fill in the rest of the time with other thinking and singing.

Traditionally, one says "Modeh Ani" while still in bed, just as soon as one is aware that s/he is awake. It makes a big difference to transform waking up into waking up on purpose. Then the discipline is to get out of bed with enthusiasm, without delay, to begin the day. Subjectively, I don't "wake up" until I head out the door so I've modified the practice to fit my temperament.

The two prayers bear different messages for me, day by day, but generally "Modeh Ani" is a moment to embrace my life, my special circumstances. "Sh'ma" is a moment to embrace a larger reality in which I am not the center, and "Ve'Ahavta" is a moment to dedicate myself to its service.

I can't claim that those rituals get my head put on straight, day by day, but I think they help me be happier and more peaceful than otherwise. Not as a chore, a rule, a should, or a have-to. Just as a natural part of my waking-up process, as often as I do it. Since I find it a naturally reinforcing experience, "as often as I do it" ends up being almost every day.

I could go on about how those two or three basic thoughts make for a good mindset for me. There are many "Golden Rules" that embrace those  affirmations that (1) Each of us individually is God's child; and (2) None of us individually is God's *only* child - everyone is equally special, sacred, wondrous, or, as Yoda said, "luminous."

Jesus famously said that the Torah could be summarized as (1) Love God; (2a) Love your neighbor (2b) as yourself.

Hillel gave my favorite Golden Rule when he advised, "(1) If I am not for myself, who will be? (2a) And if I am only for myself, what am I? (2b) And if not now, when?"

I really like the Albert Einstein quote that has become very popular through a recent book (Naomi Levy, Einstein and the Rabbi, 2018): "A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."

That is what my little "yoga" means to me. Devoting a moment to thinking gratefully about the part that I am. Devoting a moment to thinking and caring about the whole. Then living out the day with as much vigor, love, lightness and happiness as possible.

Leaving Providence

השגחה פרטית – Individual Providence

I am afraid to say that this has been the year in which my wobbling faith in individual providence completely collapsed. "Afraid" because it is ingrained in me to feel guilty to say or even think anything that could be construed as critical of G-d. Perhaps a notion can be good or bad, worthy or unworthy, but above all it must be accurate!

The believer clings to the notion that s/he is somehow immune to the vicissitudes of life, because of divine protection. The belief in such a specifically-intervening G-d is a basic mark of the religious life.

Psalm 91. ⁷A thousand may fall at your left side, ten thousand at your right, but it shall not reach you. ⁸You will see it with your eyes, you will witness the punishment of the wicked. ⁹Because you took the Lord—my refuge, the Most High—as your haven, ¹⁰no harm will befall you, no disease touch your tent.

ז יִפֹּ֤ל מִצִּדְּךָ֨ ׀ אֶ֗לֶף וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִֽימִינֶ֑ךָ    אֵ֝לֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א יִגָּֽשׁ׃ ח רַ֭ק בְּעֵינֶ֣יךָ תַבִּ֑יט    וְשִׁלֻּמַ֖ת רְשָׁעִ֣ים תִּרְאֶֽה׃ ט כִּֽי־אַתָּ֣ה ה' מַחְסִ֑י    עֶ֝לְי֗וֹן שַׂ֣מְתָּ מְעוֹנֶֽךָ׃ י לֹֽא־תְאֻנֶּ֣ה אֵלֶ֣יךָ רָעָ֑ה    וְ֝נֶ֗גַע לֹֽא־יִקְרַ֥ב בְּאָֽהֳלֶֽךָ׃

For a long time I have felt that, though these and similar words are not literally true, they may be true in a general sense. In a general sense, good deeds bear good fruit; bad deeds bear bad fruit. I still hold by that generality, otherwise "good" and "bad" would be meaningless terms.

However, the notion that G-d protects the believer or good people, specifically, is so untrue as to be obscene. חותמו של הקב"ה אמת - The seal of God is truth. We must speak the truth.

This year I have seen yet another sweet, innocent friend, die prematurely. A young woman in our congregation was killed by a stolen car fleeing police, as she was leaving Yom Kippur services. Victims of hurricanes, earthquake, and mass-murder. Surely among all those victims there was at least one to whom the above promise should have applied. No, I can't support that rhetoric any more. It's cruel. Powerless to avert tragedy, we light candles, recite Psalms, agonize before an Intervenor whom we imagine exists or we hope exists. Almost any concretely helpful action would be more significant.

If I were to offer up a prayer of my own, I would ask a deity to grant my species the ability to adopt a dignified, responsible, and caring exuberance toward living, rather than a quavering, dependent vigil awaiting death. To recognize that nature has neither a preference for our species nor a bias against it takes only a little courage." -- James Randi, The Faith Healers

I am sure that with time, my map of reality will adjust and redraw itself. Some form of faith, now badly damaged, will return. I still live in a world full of wonder that I did not create. I still feel gratitude that I want to express. My heart still sings. עם כל זה, אני מאמין – on some level, I still believe. What I do not believe in is a remote-controlled Deity. Goodness, the human race and I have witnessed enough experiments to know that prayer makes no difference "out there." It may make a difference "in here." It's a hard habit to break. I hope I'll have the courage, consistency, and conviction not to insult God with requests It will not answer and obeisance It does not demand. I'm not sure what will be left.

Jewish Values VS. Torah Values?

Understanding Jewish Values means more than citing chapter and verses (or, daf and amud).

Jewish cultural values and the values of Torah and tradition are often in harmony but sometimes are at odds. Ambivalence toward our traditional religion is part of our cultural heritage. Rabbis and apikorsim, devout and secular, all are part of the Jewish experience; and the Jewish experience is what makes Jewish values, Jewish.

A value is simply that which an individual holds as valuable. That which a person will work to achieve, or to avoid losing. That for which a person will trade their life-energy. Generally, a value will be expressed by an abstract noun, such as Love, Community, Family, Honesty, Dignity, etc. A big screen TV can be a value, I suppose, but we would normally speak of Entertainment or Status as the values (worthy or unworthy). The big screen TV is the instrument for obtaining those values.

Values that are informed by the Jewish experience can, usefully, be called "Jewish values." Values which are intended to enhance Jewish survival and happiness are also "Jewish values." Since there are many Jewish individuals, there can be diverse and even contradictory Jewish values. Individuals' appraisals of the value of the Jewish traditional religion will differ and contradict as well.

Values taught in the Torah tradition and otherwise supported by Jewish experience will, of course, be Jewish values. There may be values taught in the Torah tradition that are not validated by the larger Jewish historical experience. In other words, there may be a Torah value that is not a Jewish value – at least not for some Jews. I assert that this is the case. The area of partial non-intersection between Torah values and Jewish values is the impetus for this article.

The values expressed in the Torah tradition were, of course, indicative of a certain sector of the Jewish experience at the time they were articulated. With the march of time, those experiences gained a larger context and those values may need to be revised.

Anyone but the most cynical must acknowledge that there is an area of overlap between religious values and rational values. The perceived size of the overlap will vary from appraiser to appraiser.

Also, even the hyper-rationalist or hyper-religious can acknowledge that there is a vast realm (everything outside the diagram) of bad, unworthy, irrational and untraditional values.

For the present discussion, we are most concerned with the realm of Traditional Values (i.e., values of the Torah tradition), which fall outside the realm of Rational Values (i.e., values borne out by experience).

Example #1. Genocide. Through long experience of persecution culminating in the Nazi holocaust, the Jews as a people have developed the value that Genocide is undesirable and should be prevented when possible. This differs from the values of the Torah which advocated the complete annihilation of several "nations" of Canaan.

Example #2. Freedom of Religion and Thought. Through long experience of religious persecution which ended only with the appearance of a free State with pluralism and freedom of religion, the Jews as a people have come to cherish the value of religious freedom, not only for ourselves, but for everyone. (G-d bless America.) Indeed, we tend to cherish freedom of thought in general. This differs from the values of the Torah which advocated the death of idolaters and seducers to idolatry, and of the Tradition which advocated the corporal punishment or excommunication of heretics and rebellious community members. To affirm the old values of the Torah tradition would be to transgress values of the Jewish people based on a fuller bank of experiences.

It is necessary to articulate these principles, lest, by teaching classical Jewish texts to young people, we give them the erroneous impression that the texts are to be believed and practiced, uncritically. G-d forbid I should play a part in so binding the conscience and restricting the developing mind of those who are our future. On the contrary, we share with them the heritage of our cultural experiences (including religion), along with what we and humankind have learned about critical thinking and political philosophy. Our youth will then be in a position to lead us forward into better days when wise values can be nurtured and achieved, and unworthy values can be rejected and supplanted.

Yarmulke

Why I Usually Don’t Wear a Yarmulke / Kippah

The Kippah is an expression of the vertical metaphor about G-d. It is a sign of submission to that which is above the wearer. G-d is above; I am below. G-d is authority; I am submissive. G-d is King; I am subject. G-d is the Commander; I am obedient. G-d is Creator; I am creature. And so on. Most likely my friend who wears a yarmulke knows that those metaphors are not literally true, and I know the same thing. Nevertheless, those vertical metaphors resonate for my friend; and they do not resonate for me.

When I think of G-d, I think of a level of reality that is deep within me and all that is; also surrounding me and all that is. G-d is Life; I am alive. G-d is closer than my breath. G-d is that to which I give expression when I am being my best and most inclusive self. G-d is the Self of the Universe of which I am an expression. Rather than think of G-d as my Commander, I think of G-d as my Inspiration. This is the depth metaphor.

In my mind, as a person for whom the depth metaphor resonates, wearing a kippah adds nothing and is actually somewhat inappropriate. As a symbol, it elicits attitudes and conceptions that are unhelpful. If I wanted to place the yarmulke where its symbolism would be most appropriate for me, I would swallow it (so it would be within me), or wrap myself in it (so it would surround me), but not place it on my head.

[For more elaboration on these metaphors see writings of Arthur Green, sh’lita, for example, Seek My Face, a Jewish Mystical Theology, p. 9.]

Now, I know that the depth metaphor is, after all, a metaphor and not literally true. I am not so bound to it that I feel the need to refrain from wearing a yarmulke, in protest, when attending a traditional synagogue where the head covering is customary. I have no axe to grind and no banner to wave. When in a situation where the kippah is socially expected, I have no problem wearing it.

However, given the choice to dress in a way that expresses the beliefs that most move me, I will not wear a yarmulke or kippah. Unless, on a given day, in a certain context, it does move me and give me meaning. In that case, I will put it on.

The Source of Value of Jewish Values

In a blog widely read on the internet last week, a “ba’al teshuvah” from Jerusalem wrote:

The big flaw and the unsolvable problem of Reform Judaism is that it does not acknowledge the divinity of the Torah and the obligation of a Jew to follow Jewish law (halachah) accordingly. If the Torah is not from G-d and G-d is not real, then why be Jewish? What’s the point?

For the aforementioned blogger, the divine Torah is his primary object of interest and value, and the rest of Jewish life is of interest and value only derivatively. That derivative value is strong enough that he has moved to Israel, sired seven children there, presumably fought in the army, and in general lived what I’m sure is an admirable Jewish life – all because he believes that G-d told him to. I do not want to denigrate this person at all. However, I cannot believe that he finds no value in Jewish life apart from a command of G-d. I cannot believe that if his faith in the “divinity of the Torah” should waver tomorrow, that the next day he would leave Israel, disown his wife and children, stop speaking Hebrew, and in every way abandon the whole array of culture, wisdom, religion, history, experience, and existential feeling called “Yiddishkeit.”

In contrast, for me, it is the Jewish people, our history, culture, values, music, food, languages, struggles, triumphs, and intense belonging with each other that is the primary object of interest and value, as far as religion is concerned. The Jewish people have an historic religion, partly based on but in no way limited by the Torah. To me the Torah (divine or not) has derivative interest and value, the primary interest and value for me being the Jewish people themselves. Like the blogger, my derivative values can be quite intense. I am intensely interested in the religious heritage of the Jewish people, including the part he considers the divine Torah. I study it a lot, and value it a lot. The fact that it is a derivative value for me does not mean at all that is of slight value.

To sum up:

• Jerusalem blogger values an idea about the Jewish religious heritage, and therefore values the Jews.
• I value the Jews and therefore our religious heritage.

G-d bless us both. For me, his point of view would be tremendously unstable and unsatisfying, relying as it does on a mere concept. My point of view makes much more sense to me. Maybe my brother in Jerusalem, if he tries hard enough, could understand why.

Gay

Last week a student asked me, "Does the Torah say you can't be gay?" I get that question or a similar question every so often. Although I wrote the following piece some time in the past, I wanted to post it to this blog in order to make it more widely available.

=============

May 18, 2004

RE: Judaism and homosexuality

Dear [Student’s name]:

It's very hard to write about a complicated subject as background for a newspaper article. In the nature of things, a newspaper article can't digest an essay; you need short points and short quotes. I'll try to put my thoughts into a useful format.

1.       Reform Judaism in the U.S. is represented by the congregational organization, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the rabbinic organization, the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Both organizations have passed resolutions supporting equal civil rights for gay and lesbian couples, including secular marriage. In addition, the CCAR encourages (but does not require) its members to officiate at commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. The links to these resolutions are given below:

http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item_id=2000

http://ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/resolutions/2000/same-gender-officiation/

2.    The written Torah forbids one possible sexual act which a man might perform with another man. Based this, people often say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. However, the written Torah forbids no sexual act which a woman might perform with another woman. It forbids a variety of sexual acts which a man might perform with a woman. It also forbids a variety of foods. No one has asserted based on this that the Bible is against heterosexuality, or against eating.

3.      The Tradition, going beyond the letter of the Torah, forbids most sexual acts which a person might perform by himself/herself or with another, except for sex between a married woman and her husband that culminates in vaginal intercourse. Based on the Bible, even in marriage, sex may take place only at a time when a wife is free from her menstrual period and has prepared herself through the mikvah.

4.    People differ from each other in terms of the strength of their sex drives and the focus of their sexual orientation. Some people are only attracted to people of the opposite sex and would find it impossible to bond in the same way with a partner of the same sex. Such people are heterosexual or "straight." Some people are attracted only to people of the same sex and are homosexual or "gay." Some people are bisexual and can be attracted to males and females. These are not rigid categories – there is an entire spectrum. A person's sexual orientation is discovered, not chosen – like one's preference for chocolate or vanilla ice cream, for blondes or brunettes, etc. The Torah does not (and could not) forbid any sexual orientation.

5.      If human nature has stayed the same since Biblical times, clearly some people in Biblical times were gay. The way King David expresses himself about his friend Jonathan has homoerotic overtones. There is no evidence that King David acted sexually on his feelings, but the feelings themselves were clear: "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

6.     A famous homoerotic relationship among the Talmudic sages was that between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan. Again, there is no evidence that they acted sexually on their feelings. See:          
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=757&letter=S

7.      My own point of view is impacted by the fact that I have had friends in committed gay relationships whose lives were positive and healthy. I have also had friends who attempted to bury homosexual feelings inside a "straight" marriage, and I was witness to the constant daily suffering that came from the attempt. I've been present as a musician and friend at a Jewish wedding ceremony between two women, and found it very moving and wholesome.

8.      Because I believe that sexual behavior is best directed into a socially-constructive relationship, I think that heterosexual sexual activity, whenever possible, should be reserved for marriage. I think that homosexual sexual activity, whenever possible, should be reserved for a committed relationship. Of course, no one is coming up to me and asking me what they should do in their sex lives, and I don't judge, so long as the activities people are engaging in are responsible. Responsible means that people accept the consequences along with the act: children, health consequences, the emotional bonds that are created, etc. Where people act as if their actions do not have predictable, foreseeable consequences, they are unethical and immoral.

9.      In agreement with the statements from the Reform movement which I gave you above, I certainly support full civil rights for gay people. The government has no legitimate interest in what goes on inside our bedrooms. I also support commitment ceremonies for gay couples. I know of nothing in the Torah or the Jewish tradition that prohibits any two people from making any contracts with each other or promises to each other that they choose to. The community can certainly honor them by witnessing their promises and celebrating with them.

10.   I personally would not use the word "Kiddushin" for the relationship that is created by such a ceremony. The English word "Marriage" is fine with me. This is for technical reasons and has nothing to do with the moral quality of the relationship created.

My understanding of halakhah is that the marriage ceremony, between a man and a woman, changes the personal status of the woman, rendering her mekudeshet, with the result that if she sleeps with any Jewish man other than her husband, the union is called adultery and the children produced are mamzerim. The personal status of the husband remains unchanged. He assumes contractual obligations toward his wife, but he does not become mekudash toward her. If he has a relationship with a single Jewish woman, that relationship would not be called adultery (under Jewish law) and the children produced would not be mamzerim.

The kind of relationship created between two men or two women by a commitment ceremony would be, in my view, similar to the bond binding a husband to his wife under Jewish law – a bond created by contract or promises rather than a bond which changes the personal status of the parties. The only practical difference is that, if a woman bound by a commitment ceremony should have an affair and produce children, the affair is not "adultery" and the children are not mamzerim.

To anyone other than a student of Jewish law, this may seem like silly semantics. However, those are my reasons. Kiddushin is the relationship which binds a Jewish married woman to her husband (not vice versa), the violation of which is adultery (ni'uf).

The English word "Marriage" is fine with me because in our civil society, "marriage" creates a mutual obligation between two partners, equally binding in the same terms on both parties. That is exactly what a commitment ceremony for a gay couple seeks to create, and I see no reason, civilly, to hinder the creation of such a partnership.

11.    Bottom line: Neither the Bible nor Judaism prohibits "being gay." I think people should reserve sex for marriage. I think marriage should be possible under the law for gay people. I think appropriate Jewish ceremonies should be available for gay marriage. I think that people who think differently than me are OK.

An Article, in Which the Author Fails to Resolve Whether He is an Atheist

What concept am I referencing when I refer to G‑d?

Before I can answer the question of whether I believe in G‑d  I must know what conception of G‑d I am talking about. I personally speak of G‑d in three basic contexts.

1.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the Universe personified. If it rains, I might say that G‑d has sent rain. When a child is born, I may celebrate G‑d's gift of life. When a loved one dies, I may sadly accept the will of G‑d  By “G‑d” in this context, I mean “the Power behind whatever happens,” or more precisely, “Whatever happens, Personified.” I don’t believe that such an entity “really” exists apart from Its effects. The personification of reality is a vivid and useful way of thinking, sometimes. It is not “true.”

2.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the main character of the Bible [as eloquently described by Jack Miles]. The personal traits which would explain Its words and actions would be the traits I would ascribe to G‑d as a literary character. The relationship of Conception #1 to Conception #2 is perhaps the main problem for theologians in the Jewish tradition and related traditions. “G‑d” of the Bible is to “G‑d” of the Universe as “Hamlet” of Shakespeare is to “Hamlet” of history. Any connection is interesting but really unimportant. The main character of the Bible is a fascinating literary figure, but any resemblance to reality is entirely coincidental.

3.      By “G‑d” I may mean, the figure addressed in the Jewish Prayer Book. It is a fascinating synthesis of views 1 and 2. In prayer, I seek to find my place in the scheme of the Universe, so that I give importance to that which is important, and gain perspective on what is unimportant. It so happens that many of the prayers address G‑d the traditional literary character, especially those drawn from the Psalms and other parts of Scripture. I shamelessly recite such passages and completely transpose them in my mind. I sing the praises of G‑d #2 as if It were really G‑d #1 (which, as far as I know, does not particularly desire or enjoy praise). I recite the biblical words while discounting the over-personifications inherent in them.

To our ancestors, it was very important to believe that G‑d #2 is the only G‑d  and all others are idols. I do not believe that G‑d #2 is real. I don’t think that G‑d #2 is, in essence, any different than any other imagined G‑d.  The lack of visible physical representation is very important to Jewish culture, but is not philosophically significant. The Main Character of the Bible has psychological traits and may be analyzed like any other literary character. It is, in that sense, finite.

When someone asks, “Do you believe in G‑d ” I think that they are usually referencing version #2, as they understand It. The G‑d of the Ten Commandments, the seven day Creation, and the Exodus. No, I do not believe in that G‑d  but I do cherish It. It represents the way my people understood Ultimate Reality for thousands of years. It has become, for me and my tribe, a symbol of Ultimate Reality – but not an accurate portrayal of It.

[I should also entertain the figure of G‑d as portrayed by various world religions and philosophies. On a day to day basis, though, they do not come into my mind and this is a personal “blog.”]

Do I believe in the natural G‑d which I designated version #1? “Believe” is just not the right word. I often view things from that perspective. A perspective is not a belief. I don’t think the natural G‑d exists apart from the Universe of which It is a personification. There is ultimately no practical significance to whether It exists or not, except for a measure of personal inspiration that I derive from the imagery. Certainly the World exists, Life exists; however we make sense of it is up to us.