Thursday, 13 September 2018

To Choose Our Own Way

My thanks to all who made our Rosh Hashanah services so special; from the main service where Chazan Stephen’s leadership was so appreciated to the hall and children’s services, it was a wonderful honour to celebrate 5779’s arrival with you all. Yom Kippur begins with Kol Nidrei on Tuesday evening.

This is my final reflection on Scott Samuelson’s Seven Ways at Looking at Pointless Suffering. Previous reflections are [here - It is a remarkable and warmly recommended book, combining both rigorous reading of philosophical masters and more personally grounded insights drawn from Samuelson’s experiences as a teacher of philosophy in prison. But the title ... I don’t like. I get that titles need a certain ‘snap.’ But that word, ‘pointless’ sticks. At one point in the book, Samuelson gives an example of the level of suffering he considers pointless. It’s a brutal narrative, his neighbour was born with a “broken brain” and lived her a scream ‘that was a pure siren of misery,’ It sounds awful and I wouldn’t dare presume to find in her suffering point and how much the more so reason or justification. But I’m nervous about imputing pointlessness on anyone’s experience from the outside.

Dr Ros Taylor, one of the country’s leading palliative care physicians, was a member of my previous Synagogue, SAMS, and we did a series of sessions together on end of life issues. She was strongly opposed to softening legal positions on euthanasia. Her experience was that while many people could come up with theoretical positions in which they would wish for euthanasia, for themselves or for a loved one, when - God forbid - these awful situations unfolded it was only very rarely that the experience of even a slither of what we call ‘quality of life’ was not cherished. The point is that the pointlessness of suffering is a decision that should not be made from the outside of a direct experience. It is a subjective call, one that can only be made by a person suffering, not by a book.

My most cherished heroic insight into this perspective on suffering comes from the Auschwitz survivor Victor Frankl, who lived through Holocaust and reflected on the single thing that can never be taken away from a sufferer; their ability to find purpose and value even in the most barbaric of circumstances;

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been a few in number, but they offer sufficient proof, that everything can be taken from a man but one thing; the last of freedoms – to chose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to chose one’s own way.”

May we all be spared suffering in this year and for many years to come. But - should it come, and frankly, of course, it will come - may we find the ability to chose our own way, even there.


This is Shabbat Shuvah, I’ll be sharing some of the great insights of Maimonides into Teshuvah on Shabbat. All welcome.

Sunday, 9 September 2018

Rosh Hashanah 5779 - Day Two - Truth

I want to look back, before the tale we read from the Torah today, the tale of the binding of Isaac, to an earlier tale told of Abraham. It’s not a tale from the Torah itself, but a Midrash woven into the Biblical story, but it is a very old Jewish story.

Abraham, the Midrash teaches, was the son of an idol salesman, Terach. One day Terach left his son in charge of the shop. Abraham takes a hammer and smashes the idols leaving the hammer in the hands of one surviving statue. When his father comes home he asks his son, ‘What’s happened,’ ‘Well,’ responds the son, ‘There was a fight over who would get to eat a plate of flour someone bought as an offering and this one won.’

For those of us who like to keep track of this sort of thing, this isn’t really a case of Abraham is lying to his father. Rather Abraham is using language to signify the opposite meaning to the language he was using - that’s called irony. It has a fine and long tradition in Jewish thought. I digress.

Terach accuses Abraham of stupidity - of course the big statue hasn’t wielded the hammer, and Abraham responds to his dad, ‘Don’t your ears not hear what your mouth says!?’ He’s accusing his father of living a life of deceit. And Terach doesn’t appreciate being accused of living a life of deceit - so Abraham gets sent off to the ruler to be taught better of it.

The great ruler Nimrod gets in a logic battle with the upstart Abraham, and loses. Of course, he’s going to lose, he’s an idolator and this is a Jewish story. But the thing that interests me is the way young Abraham is portrayed as a person whose commitment to truth prevents him from taking the easy option; just be nice to your dad, just be nice to the ruler, don’t get in trouble. Rather Abraham makes a fool out of his dad, and a fool out of Nimrod. And for this, the story continues, Abraham gets thrown into a furnace for his troubles.

Two lessons from this story;
Telling truth to power gets you in trouble.
Ultimately truth wins out. Nimrod and his culture of deceitful idolatry is gone, and we are still here.

The thing I’m interested in today is the pursuit of truth.

We all face opportunities to commit ourselves to truth, and we all face opportunities to take other options. In so many ways this is the story of this community. We are only here, New London is only here, because our founding Rabbi, Louis Jacobs, had the option to recant, take back his truth claims about how the Torah came to be, and refused. For this he got in trouble. He lost his job, he lost the chance to be Chief Rabbi with the fancy house and gong that would surely have come to him. And here we all are.

Aside from a belief that, in the end, a commitment to truth will win out over a commitment to one kind of dishonesty or another, I don’t really have a choice about being a student of Rabbi Jacobs. I can’t get my soul around a religion perpetrated on deceit, or a hand-in-the-sand attitude to how and when Judaism developed. And it may be that more fundamentalist forms of religious fervour seem superficially more powerful. But this is the only kind of religion I can love.

We live in strange times for the pursuit of truth. Jonathan Freedland, writing earlier in the year, suggested that the greatest contest of our age is the contest between truth and post-truth.

“We are [he wrote] in an era when the argument is no longer over our response to events, but the very existence of those events. These are symptoms of a post-truth disease in which the truth or falsity of a statement depends on whether the person making it is deemed one of us or one of them. [He continues] information is evaluated based not whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders.”[1]

Do you need examples? There’s Russia and Novichok, Trump and ... well lots of things, there’s Brexit, or Brexin, or Israel or the environment, or ... Freedland refers to a school shooting in Florida where one response from the pro-gun lobby to the death of children was to claim the massacre had not happened at all, and that all those grieving parents and teenagers were “crisis actors.” It’s harder to come up with areas of public life that are free from what Freedland calls “tribal epistemology”[2] - things meaning the things we decide they mean based on their tribal allegiance.

“The greatest contest of our age is the contest between truth and post-truth.”

My sense is that there are two ways to find truth; let me call them the poetic and the prosaic.

Now I love poetry.
You see how the world goes? King Lear asks Gloucester.
I see it feelingly, Gloucester responds.[3]
How wonderful to see feelingly.

There were whispers of the poetic path towards truth in the Torah reading from this last Shabbat.

Torah, we were told on Shabbat, is not in the heavens so we should say who should go up to the stars to bring it down for us. Rather, the verses read, it is very close, in your mouth and in your heart so you shall do it.
That’s poetry for you and its lovely.
Poetic truths burrow into our hearts and set our worldview without our really realising; an evocative image, a captivating turn of phrase. Poetry dismantles our defences so its claims seep into us.

Poetry is so much more delightful than the other thing; the search for prosaic truth.
But here’s the thing about poetry - when Gloucester says, ‘I see it feelingly,’ he’s blind. He’s forced to see feelingly because he has no other option. The rest of us should use every faculty we possess.

This December marks the 200th Anniversary of the publishing of a 30 page article with the unassuming title, ‘On Rabbinic Literature.’ It was written by a German academic, Leopold Zunz and marks the foundation of what’s called Wissenschaft des Judentums - the critical, the prosaic, study of Judaism. It’s one of the most influential pieces of scholarship in Jewish history. It’s the sort of scholarship I was taught in my Rabbinical studies in New York. It’s the sort of scholarship Louis was taught - not in his Yeshiva studies - but when he went to UCL, when he entered the world of the academy.

It’s the sort of scholarship that explains how the great Piyutim of Rosh HaShanah could never had been written were it not for the disciplines of Arabic and Islamic rhetoric. It explains how the very institution of the Synagogue takes as inspiration early Christian church practice. It explains, even, the relationship between the Biblical book of Exodus and the older Code of Hammurabi. That’s a lot of sacred cows dispatched in a few sentences, but these are the things the careful, scholarly, prosaic pursuit of truth has taught those of us who wish to see not only feelingly, but with a commitment to what actually is and has happened.

You want to know what an ancient text means, you have to dig out textual variants, hand-written manuscripts boxed up in different libraries scattered across the globe. You have to set the text in its ancient context - that means having to learn a slew of languages both ancient and modern. It means taking seriously philology, history, sociology, anthropology - it’s exhausting. And at the end of it, you often find yourself disturbed by the very claims you have now proved.

If you are into poetic expressions of truth, then, yes, God dictated the Torah to Moses. But if you seek prosaically, and this is how Louis put it fifty years ago, we treasure a “composite work, [containing] material coming from diverse sources, compiled at different times, some of it, at the very least, dating from long after Moses.”[4]

Here’s the really challenging thing about the difference between the poetic and the prosaic search for truth. We feel most excited about poetic truth when we agree with the truths we find. But prosaic truth disturbs us, and our sacred cows. It breaks things. In scholarship - prosaic scholarship - scholars are more excited by insights that overturn existing assumptions than insights that reinforce what we were previously thinking.

And my point is that Judaism is, always has been and absolutely should be, committed to the prosaic, careful, iconoclastic pursuit of truth. As Solomon Schechter, another of the great prosaic scholars of Judaism - put it, “The Jew was the first and fiercest Nonconformist of the East. To break the idols, whether of the past or the present, has always been a sacred mission of Judaism.”[5]

He wrote well, did Schechter, and Zunz, and of, course, Rabbi Jacobs. There is poetry, even in the prosaic pursuit of truth. There is poetry in what we are doing here today. But we are, “seeing feelingly,” not by failing to use all our faculties. We are seeing feelingly, having engaged critically - having looked hard. That’s what gives us faith in the honesty of our emotional reactions. This is why it’s worth being part of a community like this. This is why it’s worth being a New Londoner, a Masorti Jew.

But this is about more than which Shul we turn up to on Rosh Hashanah. This is - as Freedland put it - about the, “the greatest contest of our age.”

So here are some tips - how to search for prosaic truth, on this day of judgement - the sorts of truth that the world desperately needs.

Firstly;
Prosaic truth can be found everywhere. Moses learns how to create a just society from Yitro the Midianite Priest. The Talmud recounts tales of Rabbis learning from non-Jews, from servants - male and female,[6] even the hated Romans even the cat, even the ant.[7] If you care about prosaic truth you can’t close your eyes to truths based on where they come from. You can’t be tribal in your epistemology.

Secondly;
The pursuit of truth has to be allowed to destabilise our levels of comfort. In fact it might even be the reverse is true. Any level of comfort, without a desire to destabilise that comfort, may well be self-imposed deceit. In the Midrashic collection Bereishit Rabba we find Rabbi Yosi Ben Hanina saying,
כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ תּוֹכָחָה אֵינָהּ אַהֲבָה - any love that isn’t accompanied with critique isn’t love.
And Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish saying,
כָּל שָׁלוֹם שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ תּוֹכָחָה אֵינוֹ שָׁלוֹם - any peace that isn’t accompanied with critique isn’t peace.
These are fighting words in a society where criticism is too often labelled treacherous, where disagreement is seen as a flaw. That’s terrible news. We need to stand up for the values of disagreement, we need to critique our own claims, support those who wish to criticise us and stand up for the value of discomforting truth-seeking.

Thirdly; the prosaic pursuit of truth needs to be conducted with a certain commitment to process.
There’s a famous Talmudic passage about a three-year old argument between Hillel and Shammai. Eventually, a heavenly voice declares Hillel’s position is to carry the day. Why?
“Because they were kind and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of house of Shammai, and would mention the sayings of the house of Shammai before theirs.”[8]

In the original passage both claims, of Hillel and Shammai are held to be the words of the living God, but I can’t help but think that it’s precisely because of the modesty of Hillel’s position, the commitment to hear the other voice, that Hillel’s side reaches the level of truth that ensures their viewpoint is accepted.

If you want to find truth you have to look everywhere, you have to be willing to be discomforted by what you might find and you need to commit to a truth-seeking process.

We are, as a human race, too powerful to allow ourselves to be shaped only by the poetic pursuit of truth. We are too dangerous to allow ourselves to be shaped only by, “seeing feelingly.” Our tendency to slip into tribal epistemology is threatening not only our faith, but the fabric of our society, it’s threatening the planet.

In the year to come I call on us all to pursue truth more  prosaically; to seek truth even in awkward places, to seek truth even as it destabilises our comfort, and to seek truth in ways decent and modest. And in so doing we should merit living up to the standard of Avraham Avinu - the first and fiercest Nonconformist of the East.

Shannah Tovah




[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/20/trump-us-syria-truth-tribal-robert-mueller-white-helmets-factse?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
[2] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/22/14762030/donald-trump-tribal-epistemology
[3] Act 4, Scene 6
[4] https://louisjacobs.org/new-london-synagogue/revelation-statement-theological-position-new-london-synagogue
[5] Studies in Judaism, First Series, p.xxi
[6] Megillah 18a
[7] Eruvin 105
[8] Eruvin 18a

Rosh Hashannah 5779 - Day One Alterity



In case anyone be under any doubt, I agree with you. Jeremy Corbyn has acted antisemitically.
Too many times.
And too many people in the Labour party have been acquiescent - or worse - in this antisemtism.
Here’s a phrasing I’ve appreciated, as these conversations seem, too often, seem based on the notion that there is something unalterably evil about Israel, a country whose right to exist, surely, should be a given.

This is the difference between a Zionist and a non-Zionist;
A Zionist is someone who agrees that every people have the right to self-determination.
An Anti-Zionist is someone who agrees that every people have the right to self-determination, apart from the Jews.

Those of you who are standing up to this blight in contemporary politics - I join you, I salute you. But I want to speak about something broader today something more religious; on this Rosh Hashanah day.

Aside from the disgust and the anger this story stirs in me - what is the most ancient of hatreds doing on the front pages day after day in the year 2018! - there’s a big part of me that is frustrated that our energies are getting sucked into this important fight when there are so many other important fights. So there will be more on this - I am interested in this - but I want to do something else also.

I want to talk about Alterity - a word made famous - well famous in my world - by the Jewish philosopher Immanuel Levinas.

Alterity is an approach to life built from valuing otherness, other people in particular. It’s the refusal to force other people into being just like me. To value alterity is to value the very opposite of the cosy, self-serving narcissism of so much of the world in which we live. Too often we surround ourselves with voices that agree with us and consider those different to us with disdain and distrust - if we consider them at all. That, Levinas would say, is the greatest human failing. He’s right.

Ve-ahavtah Le’Reacha Comacha - love your fellow as you love yourself says the Torah.
It’s the central organising principle in Judaism, taught Rabbi Akiva. Many of us will have heard that idea many times.
But here’s the thing.
Loving your fellow like yourself cannot be a big deal if it means loving people you like already. It can’t be a big deal if it means loving only those people who don’t do things we don’t understand, or disagree with.
Ve-ahavtah Le’Reacha can’t be a big deal if it were easy.
Loving others, valuing others, doesn’t mean agreeing with others. Rather it means caring for them even in disagreement, valuing their difference of opinion even if it feels wrong.
A commitment to alterity doesn’t mean we don’t try and persuade people of their errors. It doesn’t mean we accept the unacceptable.
It means that we make a space for the other’s otherness.

The great commentator on the Zohar, Rav Ashlag had a wonderful term for what I’m calling alterity. He called it - Ahavat Zulato[1] - the love of the one who is other. Ahavat Zulato, he says, “draws a person beyond their narrow world of pain and obstacle and into a world of timelessness and breadth.”

What he means is that focussing on loving people like us, sets up our lives to experience frustrations and pettiness whenever we encounter difference - which we are destined to do all the time. We might think life is easier in a clique where everyone behaves the same, dresses the same and values the same, but cliques are dull and too often more than a little bitchy - that’s no fun for anyone, even the people who find themselves momentarily in favour.

On the other hand when we commit to Ahavat Zulato, when we set up our lives to value people in their difference, we come to appreciate the splendour of humanity. We set ourselves up for joy.

Ashlag went further - the whole purpose of creation - the kabbalist wrote - was God’s desire to have an ‘other’ to be in a relationship with. God wanted something that was beyond God, God valued us - values us, because we are not like God.
God values alterity.
So should we.

Let me go back to the matters of politics - polis - the State.

I’m a democrat only in the sense that Churchill was a democrat - it’s the worst system of Government apart from all the others. I’m not interested in power wielded by majorities. I’m, frankly, nervous of the masses getting together and deciding what’s right for me - in my oddness and idiosyncrasy.
The thing I love about democracies is the way good democracies control the power of the majority; limiting how much power the majority gets to wield. Good democracies value as absolute NOT the majority, but the minority; the right of the opposition to be an opposition, the right to protest, to disagree and to be different. Good democracies need good oppositions. When I hear politicians, in this country or any other, suggesting that to disagree is somehow traitorous I get deeply nervous.

I believe in alterity because I want to live in a society that is as vibrant and multi-faceted as possible.
Valuing alterity is how we learn, how we develop economically, scientifically, artistically - in every way. I really believe in this alterity thing.

And here’s how to value alterity.
Don’t poke fun at people who disagree with you.
Don’t attack people for a supposed sin of disagreeing with you.
Don’t assume others are only disagreeing with you because they have it in for you.
There’s too much of all of that in the world, and none of it is helping.
Engage critically, seriously, even do other people the honour of imagining that it’s you, after all, who might be in the wrong. It’s good to be confident in what we believe, but make allowance for the doubts of others too.

So much for being a better person, what’s it got to do with being better Jews?
As a Rabbi, I struggle with this creeping sense that the melting pot is the way to go. I sometimes hear an argument that Jews should really just consider ourselves just like everyone else, universalist members of a universal society. And that view is wrong; it’s wrong ethically, politically, economically, emotionally. It’s wrong in every way I can count. Among the things we should value when we value alterity - difference - is our own difference; as Jews, as proud committed engaged Jews who understand our faith and our tradition and the contribution we can make to a society in our difference, in our alterity.

We fail to play our part when our Jewish identity - and the things we do to strengthen and preserve that identity - become ever more attenuated.
That’s not to say the antisemtism is the fault of the Jews. I’m not making that point at all. But the power to shift the debate is, in part, in our hands.

There’s this creeping sense many Jews have that the way for us to get on in the world is to request from our schools and our employers and our selves less and less time off work for Jewish sacred celebration. That view is wrong. When we create space in society for our own alterity we strengthen the respect for us in our difference and we strengthen the respect for the difference of others also. The Second Day of Rosh Hashanah is just about the most important day of the religious year. It’s worth a day off work.

I haven’t done the maths - I don’t know how you could do the maths - but in that extraordinary list of Jewish Nobel Prize winners and Jewish titans of creativity and industry I can’t imagine there is anyone who would have failed to make their impact on the world had they not worked on Second Day Rosh Hashanah. But I do believe many of them would have failed had they not relished their own otherness, had they not mined their own otherness for strength, inspiration and insight.

Take off Second Day Rosh Hashanah. If you really can’t, come back at 6:30 tonight for Maariv. Come for first day Succot. Come for Shabbat. Come to understand more, to feel more at home in our alterity. We shouldn’t be strangers to our self.

There’s this creeping sense that we are somehow better members of the human race when we abdicate a commitment to keeping Kosher when presented with a piece of treyf steak. And that view is wrong. Next time you see treyf steak offered on a menu, order something else. Next time you are invited to hosts who might not know, explain ahead of time. It’s not so hard. It might save Judaism, it might save the world.
We need more faith in our own alterity.

I know we get nervous when making claims for our alterity, but unless we confront that nervousness we can get locked into a cycle of embarrassment. We claim less and less until there is nothing left.

A tale lifted from Devorah Baum’s newly published book - The Jewish Joke.
Two people, who used to be proud of being Jews, meet on the street. They haven’t seen one another for some time.
“How are you?” says one.
“Fine” says the other.
End of joke.
(It’s not supposed to be funny).

There’s a muscle that is atrophying in our Jewish identity; it’s the muscle that knows how to explain, politely, but with self-confidence, that we don’t do the same thing as everyone else and that we would be grateful - but also that we expect - respect for our difference - a respect we open-heartedly offer to reciprocate for others in their differences also.

I know it’s tricky - but only at first. The first time we respectfully request a space for our own difference, the easier it is the second time, and more often than not it won’t take a second time.
And if it does go wrong, well, the person who takes umbrage at a polite request for the acceptance of my difference as a Jew is probably not the sort of person I want to spend too much time with.

That brings me back to Corbyn and the Labour party he leads.
When the Labour MP, Frank Field, resigned the parliamentary whip he said he did so for two reasons; because of the antisemtism, and because of the “culture of intolerance, nastiness and intimidation.” It’s the same issue. If you don’t like Jews because Jews are different, you betray your dislike of anyone who holds onto difference. No-one is intolerant just of Jews.
We don’t combat intolerance by effacing our own difference as Jews.
We don’t promote the value of alterity by effacing our own alterity.
No-one is fooled when we efface our alterity as Jews, not even ourselves.

Two Jews meet for the first time, ‘My name was Blum, what was yours?’[2]

I know it’s hard for many of us to feel confident enough in our relationship to Judaism to make the claims that our Jewish differences should be honoured. We are, too much of the time, too concerned that we might be seen as a hypocrite, or a fundamentalist, or maybe we just don’t have enough knowledge to understand why one thing or another is worth standing up for.
So here’s my top trip.

Worry less, do more.

Judaism is a bit like love. If we worry too much about whether we love someone and how exactly we should show our love, and whether we should call our possible lover back today, or tomorrow, or possibly the third day after we last spoke ... the whole thing will probably just dribble away.
But if you behave in a loving way there’s a chance of it working out.
And if you can get the words, ‘I love you,’ out of your mouth, there’s a chance your conversation partner might become your lover.

The same goes for Judaism. If we wait to understand enough about Shabbat, or prayer ... if we wait long enough to be sure it’s worth being a bit different - it will be too late. If someone asks if we are serious about our Judaism and we prevaricate and equivocate and obfuscate, we’ll persuade ourselves out of this glorious heritage.

So come, join us. Do things. Take opportunities. Speak up. Start now, start in this New Year, start tomorrow when I’ll have more to say about saving the world, and saving Judaism.

Do things. Take opportunities. Speak up. Start now, start in this New Year. May it come to us all for good, in health, and alterity.

Shannah Tovah




[1] I’m grateful to my colleague Rabbi Adam Zagoria-Moffat for putting me on to Rav Ashlag’s articulation, found in the Sulam, in the article on The Essence and Purpose of Religion. בביאת האדם אל אהבת זולתו, עובר האדם מתוך עולמו הצר המלא מכאובים ואבני נגף, אל עולם נצחי ורחב http://www.kab.co.il/heb/content/view/full/82715
[2] http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/V218/pdf. From T. Farkas, Jewish Surname Changes in Hungary (19th-20th Century).

Thursday, 6 September 2018

Post-Its on Shabbat

As a Shammas I have come up with an idea of placing post-it notes in advance to mark pages/call-up names in the ring-binder file. All for ease of finding said names. This involves peeling post-it note off backing - but no tearing or writing.
Is this acceptable?
--

You are asking a question about ‘Tofer’ - sewing, which is a prohibited Melachah for Shabbat.
The Halchah is that joining any two things together, by manners other than sewing - e.g. glue, is Tofer and prohibited.

The key is the intention and the manner of sticking things together.
The more permanent the intent and the manner of sticking the more the problem is.
The more temporary the intent and the manner of sticking, the less.
For example, pretty well everyone allows adhesive tabs on nappies to be used on Shabbat on the basis that these tabs are designed and intended to be taken on and off.

Question is how does a post-it note compare to this.
Firstly it’s a weak kind of glue, not meant to be permanent.
Secondly the post-it and the paper don’t really become a single item even when stuck together.
Thirdly the intention isn’t really to bind the tab to the page, but to mark a place.
Fourthly the manner of use would involve continually moving the post-its around.
There are people who are strict, but I don’t think it’s a problem.

The best way to do it would to have no permanent place for sticking post-its from or to which they are transferred on Shabbat. Just leave ‘em wherever they were, move them to where they need to be for that moment, with the intent of moving them on to where they would be needed next.
And that’s fine.


Hope that’s helpful.


Thursday, 16 August 2018

Some Light Summer Reading - Ways of Looking at Suffering - Part One



I’ve been making my way through Scott Samuelson’s newly published, Seven Ways of Looking at Pointless Suffering. I know, there are lighter offerings on the shelves, but I’m drawn to this stuff. I should probably consider a career in the Rabbinate or something. En route to my Yizkor sermon (and again Rosh Hashanah falls on the evening of 9th September), I’ll be sharing in this blog from some of the insights in the book and suggesting a Jewish response to them.

Chapter five of Samuelson’s work features the response of the Stoics. This response entails seeing suffering as no more and no less than the rules of game. As Samuelson imagines us playing chess, and wishing our pawn could zip up the board and take the opponent’s queen several ranks away, but that simply wouldn’t be chess. Similar we could wish that we, or a loved one, wouldn’t be suffering, but to wish for a life without pain is to wish for a breaking of the rules of existence. We can’t all live for ‘beyond average’ lengths of time. To think, says Epictetus, father of the Stoics, that “the fall of leaves is ill-omened, or that it is evil for a bunch of grapes to turn into raisins” is a waste of emotional energy, and worse, such an expectation only sets us up for disappointment and added heartbreak.

There is, clearly, an attraction in a stoic worldview. It’s safe from breeding disappointment. And, indeed, somewhere in a called-for Jewish response to our own bad things come the urge that we find a way to accept our experience of bad things in general and human fragility in particular. In Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur’s most magisterial prayer, the Unataneh Tokef, we acknowledge that ‘humanity comes dust, and ends in dust; like a broken clay shard, withered grass, a shrivelled flower ...’

But the response of stoicism is not the first response. And we cannot - must not - skip to the end of the story before its time. As well as acknowledging our mortality we are called to remember we are ‘little less than angels,’ that ‘the Universe is created for our sake,’ that we embody ‘the image of God.’ And so on. Life is precious, astoundingly so. Loss, pain and suffering are not invitations for cool-heads to nod coolly. They are tragedies to be mourned. In one of my favourite Talmudic passages, the young Rabbi Yochanan enters the room of the dying leader of his generation Rabbi Eliezer to see his teacher in tears. “Why do you cry?” the neophyte asks as if tears are somehow a failure of greatness. “I cry because of the beauty that is to rot in the earth” the Master responds, “And they cry together.” We don’t express our humanity through being so tough, so smart or so stoical that we feel no pain. That is the characteristic of a rock, not a being of flesh and soul. We should not feel called to transcend our humanity. For humans the more we love, the more we hope, the more we invest in the relationships which are the true touchstones of humanity, the more we hurt when these hopes are dashed. To hurt is to be human. Transcendence of our mortal realm is not the goal. Our suffering, as painful as it may be, is not pointless if it connects us to our humanity, rather it reminds us, even in our pain, of the importance of having a soul at all.

Ways of Looking at Suffering - Part Two

 I’m sharing, in my words at this time of year, insights sparked by Scott Samuelson’s newly published, Seven Ways of Looking at Pointless Suffering.

Samuelson suggests that there are primarily two human responses to suffering; fix-it and face-it. He grants a third response; forget-about-it - which he acknowledges is practically common, but philosophically “not significant.” “Thanks to our fix-it energies,” he writes, “we’ve used our creative fire to forge all sorts of inventions to better our lives. A large portion of civilization arises out of the fix-it attitude, including a fair amount of science and politics, and nearly all technology.” Fixing things is good. But, Samuelson goes on to suggest, because up to the modern period we weren’t actually particularly good at fixing things we also had to develop our skills in facing-suffering.
Nowadays we are so much better at fixing things. Marvellously, infant mortality rates are down, desperate poverty is on the decline, we have and we are achieving so much. Our fix-it muscles are honed, taut and powerful. Long may they continue to be so.

But our face-it muscles have atrophied. In our fix-it obsessed modern age, we seem surprised we can’t fix our mortality and we don’t know what to do about it. We’ve lost our face-it fitness. Facing-suffering is a powerful skill to possess. Samuelson suggests facing-suffering “characterizes much of religion, art, and the humanities, as well as a certain significant portion of science and politics.” Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are face-it moments in the year. We are called to feel fragile, as if we pass before our creator like sheep on a narrow path, each falling under the eye of a watchful shepherd, none knowing of its fate. But we don’t know how to do this well. “Rather than confront our anxiety at the sadness, we fidget on our tools of infinite distraction.” Yes, leave that mobile-phone at home when you come to shul.

Here are my three top tips to strengthen the face-it muscles we will need in our lives just as surely as we need strong fix-it muscles. Sit. Put everything down and sit in one place for a while without trying to do more things. Try - even if just for these coming awesome days of prayer - not to treat life as something to be fixed. It’s OK not to always be doing something. It might be the most important spiritual gift you can give yourself. Reflect on how you treat your life and the lives of those around you. And do something decent and kind for those less fortunate than yourself. Or, as the Rabbis put it, try Teshuvah, Tefillah and Tzedakah.

The best place, the best time to begin this face-it training, is Saturday evening, 1st September, 10pm at the Shul. Do come, do support our Slichot service. It is a wonderful way to enter the spirit of the time.

Friday, 10 August 2018

Buckle In - One Month To Go


We mark, on Shabbat and Sunday, Rosh Hodesh Elul - one month until Rosh Hashanah.

Looking forwards let me share, here, our plans for the Davenning in the Kiddush Hall this year. AS well as a traditional Minyan Chadash Kol Nidrei and Neilah, we are also offering a 90 minute reduced service. It will be feature participative davenning, led by former NLS choir master Joseph Finlay, and creative approaches to Torah Service and much else. It’s designed to appeal to those who would want a briefer service, with mixed seating, also to include families with children who would prefer an adult-offering above a children’s service. All welcome, access by the same ticket which provides access to the main services. (Tickets with timings will be posted to members on XXX. Non-members can purchase tickets from the Synagogue office or the web-site.)

Let me also take this opportunity to urge members to join us for our Slichot service on Saturday 1st September. Chazan Stephen Cotsen will be leading us. Julian Dawes will be bringing his own style and compositions to the evening and I will be sharing insights into one of the most special prayers of the season to get us in the spirit. It is the most magical way to get in the mood for the services that follow (from evening of 9th, 10th and 11th Sept).

And finally, Rosh Chodesh Ellul - we begin reciting Psalm 27 at evening and morning services. It speaks of one great wish, ‘to dwell in the House of God, all the days of our life.’ It may be the wish of us, or maybe there is something else. What, exactly, do you wish for your life? Not the material things, not the things that can be counted, but the things that truly count. What is our great wish for the year ahead. For the time is coming,

Shabbat Shalom, Chodesh Tov, Shannah Tovah,


Rabbi Jeremy
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...