Sermons

Sermons for Evolution Shabbat
February 8, 2008

For the national event of Evolution Weekend, Rabbi Stone asked two scientists in the congregation to present sermons on evolution and religion. Copies of their sermons are presented here.

By Eric Mintz, Professor of Biology, Kent State University:

The goal of Evolution weekend is to stimulate conversation about the compatibility between religion and science. When I was first asked to participate in this event, I struggled a little bit because I had never really experienced a conflict between the two. Science was science and religion was religion. It did not occur to me until later that the major reason for my lack of conscious thought on the matter was that one of the basic tenets of Reform Judaism is the personal interpretation of one’s faith – we have the freedom to subscribe to particular beliefs or practices as we so choose. However, even among religions with more doctrinal rigidity than our own, there is not necessarily a conflict between the teaching of evolution and religion. Evolution is taught in Catholic schools and Catholicism sees no conflict between faith and science (although this was not always the case). The “controversy”, as it exists, springs from the view of conservative Protestant groups that employ a literal reading of Genesis. If the earth was created in 6 days, and was created less than 10,000 years ago, then evolution can not possibly have occurred. Apart from this viewpoint, the evidence in favor of evolution is so overwhelming that the idea that there is a controversy at all could be considered laughable. However, this discussion persists, so I want to spend a minute or two describing what evolution really is, and then why this idea of a controversy persists.

One of the problems is that a large number of scientists find it difficult to communicate scientific ideas to the general public; therefore, non-scientists do not have a consistent definition of evolution when referring to its existence. One relatively simple definition is that evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. That is, if a change can be inherited, and that change spreads throughout the population over a long period of time, then evolution has occurred. So when biologists say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, what we mean is that there have been inherited changes in two different populations that were isolated from one another, such that one became modern humans and one became modern chimps. Do you hear anything in that statement that excludes the existence of God? I don’t. And therefore isn’t it a little silly to claim that evolution somehow excludes religion?

We can watch this process of evolution occur within our lifetimes, as we humans have ourselves become an engine of evolutionary change. Just 200 years ago there was no such creature as a Yorkshire Terrier. Disparate-looking creatures such as the Yorky and the Great Dane all arose from selective breeding of dogs, a process that resulted from, yes, heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. If all humans suddenly disappeared from the planet, would such creatures endure? Of course not. Only dogs with the ability to survive on their own would pass on their genetic makeup to the next generation, and the evolution of dogs would continue as the population adapted to its new conditions. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is also observable evidence of evolution. But again, the important point is that the existence of this process in no way conflicts with the existence of God or, in our case, the practice of Judaism.

One of the problems that leads nonscientists to believe that there is a controversy stems from the term “The Theory of Evolution.” Opponents of the teaching of evolution say that evolution is “just a theory”, implying that it is just a guess, or an unproven idea. This arises out of the misconception that some people have about how scientists use the word Theory. Darwin had a theory of evolution, but that was over 150 years ago. Evolution is not a theory now – it really does exist. Every test we can put forth to test the existence of evolution leads to the conclusion that evolution is real.

So what is the conflict? There are three main belief systems about the origins of the life forms on the earth. 1) Beliefs promoted by religions, 2) Evolution, and 3) blends of scientific and religious beliefs, including the idea of Intelligent Design. New Earth creationists believe the earth was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago. Most commonly this view is found among some Christian groups that believe that God directly inspired the authors of the Jewish scriptures, and that the text is to be read literally. Old Earth creationists accept that the earth is billions of years old, but that God created the world and its life forms – the difference being that the “6 days” was really a much longer length of time. The scientific view is that the earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago, and that life subsequently began as simple single-celled organisms that evolved into the diversity of life we have today. Finally, the theistic evolution view (Intelligent Design) is that evolution happened as scientists describe, and that evolution was a tool used, directed, or controlled by God to accomplish a higher purpose – the creation of humans. This discussion most often takes place in the context of the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. When someone or some group promotes this, they often suggest that this should be done to “teach the controversy.” However, there is no controversy. Creationism and Intelligent design can not be taught in science classes because they are not science – their ideas can not be tested scientifically nor should they be. Similarly, creationism and intelligent design should generally not be taught in *other* classes in a factual way, as in this country that violates the separation of church and state.

The most important different between science and religion is this, and this is only my own opinion. Science requires that we be skeptical about things that can not be demonstrated, while religion requires that we NOT be skeptical about things that can not be demonstrated. Religion is about faith – we do not require evidence or proof of God to believe that God exists. One can have faith even in the face of apparent contradictions. However, one can not allow science to be driven by faith. Science requires that we have evidence for scientific beliefs. The principles of evolution give us insight to the function of the world – evolution explains the development of antibiotic-resistant drugs, changes in biodiversity in response to global climate change, even the emergence of invasive species such as the zebra mussels that are fouling up Lake Erie.

Fortunately, as Jews, we do not have to make a choice. Judaism has never been closed on scientific issues. Jews view science as just one part of the human endeavor, like art, religion, and philosophy. There are many questions for which science has no answers. But for those areas in which science does provide answers, we can safely separate the science from the faith.

By Jonathan Selinger, Professor of Chemical Physics, Kent State University:

For this Evolution Shabbat, Rabbi Stone asked Eric and me to speak with the congregation about the relationship between science and religion, particularly concerning evolution and the origin of life. Eric has already told you about the scientific basis for evolution, and he’s also told you about what scientists mean by a “theory,” as in the “theory of evolution,” and how that’s different from the meaning of the word “theory” in daily life. For my turn, I would like to speak about Jewish teaching on evolution and related issues. In particular, I’d like to tell you about something that is not a problem, and then about something else that, I think, is a problem.

First, the non-problem…

Why do so many religious groups have a problem with evolution? Why are there still so many people, across the country, even in the 21st century, who are trying to limit the teaching of evolution in schools, who are trying to replace or supplement it with the Biblical story of creation, either in its original form or disguised as “creation science” or “intelligent design”? I think it comes from a very narrow view of religion and of religious morality. Their idea is that the only reason for behaving morally is that the Bible tells you to. By that argument, if the Bible isn’t literally true then the whole system of moral guidance falls apart. They have to believe in every word of the Bible, or society will totally degenerate. From that point of view, the Bible begins with the story of seven days of creation, and so it must have happened that way, in seven 24-hour days. Any scientific research that disagrees with this story—whether evolution or geology or astronomy—is a threat to the moral life of society and must be rejected.

The question is: Is that a Jewish point of view? Well, of course, Jewish points of view are very diverse. When I started reading about this question, I found a lot more Jewish views than I expected. As always, there are Jews on pretty much every side of any issue. However, the mainstream of Jewish thinking supports a much broader understanding of science and religion. This broader understanding goes back hundreds of years, long before Darwin, to the writings of Maimonides. Maimonides was the great rabbi, physician, and philosopher of Spain and North Africa in the 12th century. In his writings, he unified Jewish thought with the science of his day. In particular, he wrote that “what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses” (Guide to the Perplexed). Rather, he said “we should endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, affirming that events take place in accordance with the natural order wherever possible” (Letter to the Jews of Yemen). Keep in mind that Maimonides didn’t know about evolution, he was thinking of the much earlier science of Aristotle. Nevertheless, it seems to me that he wouldn’t be shocked by evolution. Rather, he would say that Jewish teachings on morality can stand by themselves, and don’t depend on assuming that every word of the Bible is literally true.

In the modern age, one of the most interesting statements on “Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design” was issued in 2005 by the Rabbinical Council of America, which is the council of orthodox rabbis. Well, American Modern Orthodox rabbis. They have stated specifically that “evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.” They further note that “Judaism has a history of diverse approaches to the understanding of the biblical account of creation.” Even among the orthodox, some Jews believe that God created and destroyed many worlds before the current epoch. Others believe that the word “yom” or “day” doesn’t necessarily mean a 24-hour day, but might be a longer period—as the Psalms says, “A thousand years is like a day in Your sight” (90:4). The orthodox rabbis note specifically that nothing in the fundamental Jewish teachings about morality depends on specific scientific results. If there’s new science next year, our fundamental beliefs about morality will remain the same.

In a sense, the non-problem between the Biblical story of creation and the theory of evolution is analogous to the Torah portion that Ben Margalit read for us tonight. In this parsha, the Torah gives a lot of numbers for the size and shape and weight of the first menorah. Ben points out that the numbers don’t work; it would have been impossible to build that menorah with so little gold. Likewise, the book of Kings refers to a molten vessel that was 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. Should we interpret this passage to mean that pi = 3? Is that a Biblical mathematics that should be taught in the Hudson public schools? Of course not. We can just say that people had only a limited understanding of mathematics back then, but we can appreciate what they accomplished in developing the morality that we still live by today.

So far, I have told you about what I think is not a problem between Judaism and evolution. Now let me briefly mention what might actually be a problem. Here I’m just speaking for myself, and I admit that I don’t have Jewish sources to back me up, but please bear with me.

Much of Judaism is based on making distinctions. At the end of Shabbat, we have the Havdallah service, and the word Havdallah means separation, distinction, between Shabbat and the work week, between the sacred and the profane. Similarly, we have fundamental distinctions between God and humans, between humans and animals, and between life and non-life. By contrast, science tends to blur these distinctions, to say that everything is a gray area. For example, my own field of liquid-crystal research is based on the idea that the world isn’t just made of solids, liquid, and gases. Rather, there are other states of matter that are in between solids and liquids.

We can make a similar point about evolution. In Judaism, we assign a special moral status to humans. It’s an equal moral status for all humans, regardless of race, regardless of physical or mental handicap. However, biological science tells us that humans evolved from other types of animals, and we can dig up the fossils to prove it. From the religious point of view, we are lucky that there is a big gap between humans and our nearest animal relatives, the apes, so that we can say that there is a fundamental moral distinction between humans and animals. However, the world didn’t have to be that way. Just imagine that some of the early stages in human evolution were still out there. Suppose we found an island with Australopithecus or Neanderthals. What would we do then? Would we consider them as humans or animals? What rights would they have? Our world has a bad enough problem with racism as it is, when all humans have about the same capabilities. It would be a moral nightmare if the distinction between humans and animals were more blurred.

This hypothetical moral problem associated with evolution reminds us of real moral problems that occur all the time in the modern world. At the beginning of human life, when we have to decide what rights to associate with a fertilized egg or an embryo or a fetus at various stages of development. And at the end of human life, when we have to decide what to do with our loved ones when the brain has died but the heart still works, or the heart has died but the brain still works. In all of these cases, we would like to have a sharp distinction between life and death, but modern science tells us that it’s just more complicated than that.

So that’s the problem. Now you ask: What’s the solution? Well, I’ll tell you: I don’t know. But I can make one suggestion: I think we can learn something important by noting what’s in common between way that scientists work and the way that Jewish scholars and students have worked for hundreds or thousands of years.

The practice of science requires a certain humility, a sense that I will put forward my theories to be tested experimentally, and I’ll wait to see what happens. If the experiments don’t agree with the theory, then I have to set aside the theory and go back to the drawing board to develop a new theory. In that sense, science progresses through a constant dialogue between theory and experiment.

Likewise, over the years, much of Jewish teaching has progressed in the same way, as a constant dialogue between questions and answers, between rabbis and students. Many of our texts preserve the dialogues from centuries ago. For example, every Passover we read that Rabbi Eliezer said that each plague was really four plagues, but Rabbi Akiva said that each plague was really five plagues, and so forth. Expressing our Jewish teachings in this way gives the same kind of humility—a sense that we’re not following a rigid dogma, but rather we are open to dialogue. In particular, we’re open to dealing with the opportunities and challenges that science brings us, with our eyes open, and with respect for all humanity. That’s not a final answer, but perhaps it’s the best we can do.

Ken Yihe Ratzon. May it be so. Amen.

Essays on "This I Believe..."
Yom Kippur 5768 - September 22, 2007

Rabbi Susan B. Stone
Temple Beth Shalom

This year Rabbi Stone asked all congregation members to submit essays on the theme of "This I Believe..." The essays were presented at the Yom Kippur service, and are reprinted here with permission of the writers.

By Ellen Friedman:

A woman once told me that her husband was quite ill, and that she prayed very hard to the lord, and was not let down. Her husband had healed and her prayers were answered. I looked at her, and being the sort of person who shares what I feel, I asked her whether she would have blamed G-d if her husband had died. She looked very confused and said that G-d’s will abounds. My faith walk tells me that G-d is my friend, my parent, my guidepost, and my partner. On Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, I find it difficult to tell you that G-d does not decide why or what does or doesn’t happen to us. I survived a year of torture, rape, assault, burglary, and job loss. I clearly dealt with pure evil, and my desperate need for nurturance, caused me to experience the purest love I have ever known. This psychic up-charge left me with a clear understanding of three very important relationships:

the relationship between myself and my soul
the relationship between myself and humanity
the relationship between myself and G-d

I found that on this path, both personal and spiritual growth are inter-connected within the community around me, and have given me a glance at my personal potential, as well as the potential of others who have helped and who have harmed me.

I have learned that nothing human is beyond my understanding, and that we are all so very vulnerable as we walk around with our outer veneers. There is not a soul who does not walk through ten trials in life, and these ten trials connect us all.

Nobody escapes, and though we all believe we are standing on firm ground, the ultimate truth is that we stand united on shifting sands. All we have is ourselves, each other, and G-d.

We all experience the trauma of:

birth
death
loss
illness
change thrust upon you
evil
temptation
making wrong choices
dependency
agony

We are not meant to take life for granted. Yet we are seduced into daily routines and the false security they provide. Modeh ani lifonecha, azai melech vikayom. Shehechezartau bi nishmasi, bechem la rabha emunahsechah. Thank you G-d, for giving me this day, for having the faith in me to make use of it, not to waste it. I spend each day loving. I give love and I gracefully receive love. I endure the pain, and all the other trials of life. I love G-d, the only, the only constant in my life. I bless G-d and her gracious love by being present in my life and in the lives of those around me. I live to honor G-d, and I fully accept life’s transiency. To me, Yom Kippur is the time to examine how I may rid myself of my emotional shackles, and move towards the light of loving fully and completely.

By Len Rose:

Community must be voluntary. There are so many examples of social groups that are bound together by force, whether it is political, religious, economic, or some other power Perhaps it reverts to the Golden Rule, which some refer to as the rule of reciprocity.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is attributed to Jesus, and is found in the Gospels (Mathew). It seems to be an aggressive attitude: if you know what is good for others, and would allow them to do it to you, you may do it to them. What a strong sense of self-righteousness this suggests.

Rabbi Steven Adams once suggested that Jews have a contra-positive Golden Rule. It may have originated earlier, but the quotes I found are first from Confucius and then Hillel – and there are others, though I do not know the date of the Hindu words:

“What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.”
— Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 B.C.E.)

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.”
— Hillel (ca. 50 B.C.E. – C.E. 10)

“This is the sum of the Dharma: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”
— Mahabharata 5:15:17

Without suggesting that people are isolationists or hermits and without community, the “Not to Do” Golden Rule implies that we should not control others. Our fellows should be neither led, coerced, nor forced to do what we think is correct. If we come together, it must be on a mutually agreeable basis.

This idea reinforces, “Live and let live.” What does no harm to others or oneself should be tolerated. We should not expect others to do what we do, only that we embrace others when both parties wish to be embraced – whether it is spiritual, physical or some other mode.

Let me be as I am, and if we find something in common, we may unite at special moments. If we are speaking of religion, it may be to share the Sabbath, holidays and moments of prayer or education. It would not be to conform to your notions without my consent.

By Jean Beasley:

Until I chanted my parsha at my Bat Mitzvah at the ripe "old" age of 58, I had never experienced such a profound spiritual connection to my Jewish heritage. Having no formal Jewish education as a child, I taught myself to read Hebrew, read many books about Judaism, attended services with friends and absorbed everything I could. I have always been a practicing Jew, attending services more often than on the High Holidays and practicing Jewish customs in my home. I have always yearned for formal worship to create a spiritual bond between myself and God, and I find that most when I chant Torah.

However, I probably would never have been motivated to learn this had I not fallen in love with and then married a Lutheran man after my divorce from my Jewish husband of 20 years. At first, I was afraid to tell my Lutheran friend that I was Jewish, in case he might reject me. This was not the case, though! We spent many hours during our courtship comparing our religious beliefs and practices, and we found that our basic beliefs in a higher power are very similar. As he asked more complex questions, I became involved in research that deepened my own knowledge and left me hungry for more and desiring to "prove myself" by becoming a Bat Mitzvah.

Attending church services with him has given me a new appreciation of how God seems to have intended for the diverse humans he continually creates to find diverse ways to worship the wondrous power that created and rules and all that was, is and will be. I have become stronger in my Jewishness, and I have found a powerful common thread of God’s love in our Lutheran friends. I silently recite the Shema and Vehavta during the Apostle’s Creed and chant the Chatzi Kaddish during the Lord's Prayer.

I fervently hope and pray that some day, there will be unity of formal faiths in a way that erases differences and distinctions and emphasizes belief in God, morality, concern for all life, tolerance of differences and expresses all this in simple and joyous worship. For now, I will continue to be a hybrid (a Jewtheran?) who draws spiritual strength and guidance from both the Jewish and Lutheran perspectives and to express my deeply rooted Jewish identity in ways that reverberate in my soul.

Anonymous:

As the parent of a child with special needs, I am often told by others that I am well-suited to take care of my child’s needs or that my child is so lucky to have me as a parent. Some well-meaning Christian friends have told me that G-d sent this child to me because it was a task G-d knew I was capable of doing. With all due respect to G-d, thanks a lot! And because I have had the experience of meeting children who have been harmed by their own parents, I just don't believe this is what G-d does.

I have been fortunate to have the support, love and kindness of many people around my family and me. This congregation counts as a part of that support. Davening with this group is spiritually fulfilling. There is acceptance and a level of tolerance I have not experienced elsewhere.

Being the parent of this special child is challenging and difficult. A friend once said to me, kliene kinder, kleine tsaurus; grosse kinder, grosse tsaurus! (Little children, little problems, big children, big problems.) How true that has been for me! It is not that trip to Holland that some parents of special needs kids talk about. Many tears have been shed, many nights have been spent wide awake, many hours have been taken up by long discussions with my spouse about what to do. There has been much therapy, medical consultations, medical and psychiatric appointments and special education. And what is the Jewish response to this issue? To me, the question has not been why (at least not all the time), but more about "what"? What does this mean? What shall we do? What does a Jew say about very difficult children? The Hagaddah says the "wicked" child would not have been redeemed if he had been at Mitzrayim. The "simple" child and the child who does not know how to ask, should be led into a discussion about what our Passover holiday means. And, of course, we have pursued all those therapies, evaluations and special services. Despite all this, difficulty remains. I think it always will. We keep trying to teach, to provide help, to open up the discussion. I always remember what a rabbi once told me though. Our human bodies may be imperfect, we are only wearing them, like a space suit in space, to be in this world. Our souls are perfect. It was that beautiful and emotional answer that has helped me. We need to look for the good in others and remember that our souls are perfect. In this, I believe.

By Benjamin Margalit:

Philon (Jewish Hellenist philosopher. 20BCE-50CE) has established an early list of nine points which humanity has adapted as central to its spiritual existence. Whether Philon followed Aristotle and Plato’s philosophies, or whether Aristotle who was Alexander the Great tutor and from whom he could have received much information regarding current thinking in Judea in ~300BCE is debatable.

The necessity to formulate a uniform “I believe” has evolved through an ever-growing need to elevate human spiritual condition, but also became political. Both in Christianity (Cardo) and later in Islam (Shahada) the relative declarations became central to the conversion to either religion.

Maimonides’ (1134-1204CE) 13 principles of I believe are part of additions to the morning service liturgy and are divided into three groups:
            A-) The nature of belief in G_D
            B-) Authenticity of Torah
            C-) Mankind’s responsibility and ultimate reward

These principles, though central to Jewish thinking are not essential to the conversion to Judaism. By not politicizing the principles, Maimonides (and Jewish thinking) has re-established the perspective against which all else is measured.

This I believe – as a personal, secular statement that was instituted by NPR just a few years ago is a soft and wonderful way for any person to express their thoughts, personal experiences and lessons learned. The platform NPR provides is an asset to the community for the reasons that it restores and enforces faith at times when the listener’s mind is more preoccupied with the mundane yet receptive to information about the good in the world. I especially appreciate the platform and how it evolved, for the fact that the concept ‘This I believe’ has fused religious and secular thinking; an important lesson about ‘Tikkun-Olam’ is learned when humanity elevates it’s standards and follows G_D’s laws subconsciously rather then consciously. (Based on the concept of: “No longer shall anyone need to teach a neighbor to know the Lord, for they shall all know me, young and old!” GOP pg.429 returning the Torah to the Ark)

This I believe

I believe that I live in the center of my universe… that the information my senses transmit to my brain is analyzed and understood and reacted to in a way that is uniquely mine… that I am free to do what ever I set out to do… and become whatever I choose to become, I am that free!

At the same time I believe that every human being shares exactly the same rights, and also lives in the center of their universe…and perceives life in their own unique way, and, same as me, is also free.

Society provides many amenities, services and venues through which the individual can manifest his/her aspirations. Civilization also protects itself and the individual with sets of laws that have their roots in Torah. Basing a thought on Tip O’Neill’s “All politics is local” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” I believe civilization has learned many historical lessons and experienced the benefits of peaceful conflict solutions. I believe that fundamentalism that has its aim on destruction will eventually self-destruct…

Shanah Tovah Umetuka.

By Joy Kulgowski:

I believe all of our greatest blessings come through other people. We live our lives through relationships with others. Placing the highest value on our relationships and treating others that way is what allows us to be a blessing to them and in return to be blessed ourselves. Everyone can teach us something if we are open to it. G-d determines who walks into our life....It is up to us to decide who we let walk away, who we let stay, and who we refuse to let go. I’m beginning to realize how very blessed I am by the people G-d has brought and continues to bring into my life. Many of what I call angels have been placed in my path to guide me and to teach me. From them I have learned trust, gratitude, humility, compassion, acceptance, wisdom and unconditional love. From some I have learned how I don’t want to be. They too brought great blessing to me. It was people who gave me a loving and personal relationship with my G-d. And this gave me a more loving and accepting relationship with myself. Judaism teaches us that we are obligated to place our relationships on the highest of planes; that the following mitzvoth are some of the most important things we have to do in our lives.

To honor father and mother;
To perform acts of love and kindness;
To attend the house of study daily;
To welcome the stranger;
To visit the sick;
To rejoice with bride and groom;
To console the bereaved;
To pray with sincerity;
To make peace when there is strife.
And the study of Torah is equal to them all, because it leads to them all.

These are very spiritual mitzvoth, most of which involve others.

I know that I have survived great adversity, such as serious illness, divorce, financial difficulties, and death of loved ones, because of the strength I have received from the wonderful people, the angels, who have been put in my life. Even those dear ones who have passed on continue to inspire and guide me. Through people I have felt the purest forms of love, the greatest of joys, and the deepest of sorrows, and everything in between. I wouldn’t have missed out on any of it. All have been great blessings. I know that if I treat others the way I would want my loved ones treated, the blessings will continue. I can never be grateful enough for all I have been given through others… This I believe!!!

By David Siegal:

Rosh Hashannah, the Jewish New Year, is a wonderful time to see friends far and near.

The Jewish New Year brings us together, no matter what the weather.

We once again get to listen to our beloved Rabbi Stone, for we are not alone.

Then there's the beautiful cantorial voice of Robin Selinger.

Rosh Hashannah is a wonderful time to hear Rabbi Stone read from the Torah.

Yes, the Jewish New Year is a time when we all wish everyone peace and joy, and as we Jewish people say, Oy.

Rosh Hashannah is a time of fasting and break-fasting, with each and every one, until the day is done.

So may all of us get to know each other better.

My prayer is that we'll all experience joy and peace, for the New Year, both far and near.

Rosh Hashannah is one of my favorite Jewish holidays. I hope it's yours as well.

L'Shana Tova!

P.S. Rosh Hashannah is a wonderful time to get together with friends and have a wonderful dinner, which will leave us 10 pounds thinner.

Then there's the Temple, for one and all, from the very short to the very tall.

Yom Kippur 5768 - September 21, 2007

Rabbi Susan B. Stone
Temple Beth Shalom

Kol Nidre – Words and Music

Amongst the innumerable prayers which fill our siddurim, our prayer books, none occupies quite as beloved and central a place as does Kol Nidre. Not only does this prayer offer us the formula for atonement and the ability to begin the new year with a clean slate, it is through Kol Nidre that many of us experience our remorse for the wrongs we have committed during the past year and it has the power to move us forward toward repairing our relationships with God And our fellow human beings. The desire to repent and to return to our better selves seems embodied in this one prayer more than any other. In a liturgical flourish that nevertheless held truth, one liturgist wrote that this prayer beckons us with a summons “as old as the hills.”

Modern scholars have proffered various theories about the historical origins and rationale for Kol Nidre. Yet, there is no conclusive explanation. It has been a controversial prayer from its first appearance in 9th century Babylonia. The controversy centered on the objections of the rabbinic establishment to the content of the prayer. The question of annulling vows – whether pro-actively or retro-actively – was theologically difficult to accept. There is general agreement that the Kol Nidre prayer was “the popular creation of the masses, who overcame official opposition to make Kol Nidre the most sacred of all prayers” (Hammer, p. 115).

By the middle ages, most of Jewish communities of Europe, Spain, Italy and the Middle East had adopted its use. But a controversy arose over Kol NIdre. To understand it fully, please refer to the half sheet in your prayer books. It contains a literal translation of the classical Ashkenazi text.

All vows, bonds, devotions, promises, obligations, penalties and oaths wherewith we have vowed, sworn, devoted and bound ourselves, from this Day of Atonement to the next Day of Atonement – may it come to us for good – all these we repent us of them. They shall be absolved, released, annulled, made void and of no effect; they shall not be binding nor shall they have any power. Our vows shall not be vows; our bonds shall not be bonds, and our oaths shall not be oaths.

The language of Kol Nidre is clearly a legal declaration in the form of a prayer. Paradoxically, it absolves us from pledges we have not kept even while we are simultaneously preparing to solemnly uphold our promises and personal resolutions in the coming year. Part of the controversy over the prayer swirled around the question of whether the prayer had the power to annul interpersonal vows or only those between God and a person, or only vows one imposed on oneself. The issue was decided in the 12th century by Rabbenu Tam, a great sage, who declared that the prayer referred only to future vows, and had no authority to annual interpersonal obligations.

But that, as in much of Jewish history, was not the end of the story. As Jews embraced Enlightenment ideals in the 18th Century and enjoyed the first flowering of Emancipation in the 19th, they sought to conform their religious practices to the ideals of the majority culture. Kol Nide was viewed as an embarrassment, reinforcing a popular idea that Jews could not be trusted at their word. Despite the technicality that the prayer only nullified vows made in anger or jest, Kol Nidre was held against Jews or, putting a positive spin on it, not seen as expressive of a lofty ideal. This objection sealed the disapproval of Reform laypeople who initiated a movement to abolish Kol Nidre entirely.

Throughout the 19th century, prayer books – both Reform and Orthodox, were published without the Kol Nidre prayer in them. A variety of alternatives to the traditional formula was attempted. Figurative translations and metaphoric interpretations were offered. The most popular version (It appeared in European and American prayer books between 1870 and 1929.) actually did mention vows. But it also completely upended the meaning of the prayer by “calling not for the annulment of vows, but for divine assistance in fulfilling them.” (Gershon, p. 103)

I hope you are asking yourself why this problematic prayer was so hard to be rid of. It should have been easy. But here’s the catch: the laity didn’t really care about the message of the words in the book, “as long as it was not morally objectionable and it could be chanted to the traditional…melody”! (ibid) Here, dear friends, is the crux of the matter. Regardless of rabbis’ persistent attempts to find an appropriate text, or the laity’s embarrassment over its implied messages about Jewish trustworthiness, it was lay people, in league with the cantorate which was determined to hold on the words and the music – even when neither appeared in the prayer book.

According to leading scholars, it was the cantors who continued to sing the traditional Kol Nidre and the laity who requested it, regardless of rabbis’ persistent attempts to eliminate the prayer altogether or, in a move toward compromise, fit new words to the music. In a very wonderful way, the persistence of this conflict is illustrative of the idea that more than Torah, more than Talmud or any other written piece of Jewish learning, it is the prayer book which is the Book of My People. It is the prayer book that tells us who we are and what is important to us at any given time.

But back to the issue at hand. And this is the crux of it: it was the music of Kol Nidre, not really the words that forms the durable bond we feel. You have heard the piece already this evening in a liturgical setting. Eric’s cello, more than ably aided by Robin and Peter, moved us. I would like to reinforce the point by playing for you a bit of the classic Kol Nidre. This version with which are familiar was set down in the middle of the 18th century by Cantor Ahron Beer of Berlin and was spread throughout Northern Europe by cantors a they emerged as a professional class. Tonight’s selections are from two renowned artists, the first from Pablo Cassals and the second as sung by Metropolitan Opera star.

Do you hear it? Not only do I hear it, I feel it in my soul; in my toes. This summer, at camp, I tried this exercise with a group of 18 year olds, rising high school seniors. I asked them to bring their favorite song to one of our educational sessions and be prepared to tell the others why they loved their chosen piece so well. We spent a good bit of time processing reactions and feelings and it was obvious that one was learning new appreciation from the other. Then I played these Kol Nidre renditions for them. Their faces lit up with recognition. It reminded them of home and of years of built-up experiences. For those who realized that this Kol Nidre might be their last at home before college, it was rather poignant.

Then I did something completely unfair – I gave them the words. I warned you – you got the intellectual piece of this first. You were prepared. They were not happy with me. They didn’t like the words or the meaning of them. They viscerally did not want to reflect on them, discuss them or deal with them. I’d ruined the moment for them.

I assure you that we resolved it and they left happy. I’m not that cruel. But it wasn’t easy. The rest of our time together went somewhat like this: we talked about head and heart, about why we go to Temple (especially on Yom Kippur) and we spent a lot of time on how important it is to sometimes let the contradictions between head and heart remained unresolved. It was a really good time together.

Rosh Hashanah 5768 – September 13, 2007

Rabbi Susan B. Stone
Temple Beth Shalom

There is a list of topics American Jews don’t like to discuss in public. While I’ve never seen it in print, I know it exists. And you do too. We just don’t like to acknowledge it.

Some of the things on the list include sex, money, race and politics. But those are almost to be expected. We are Americans after all and few Americans like talking about these things in public. But we have at least one more issue that we avoid. We avoid talking about how we really feel about Israel.

For some of us, it is easy to ignore; so far away, so complicated, so not a part of daily life. Many of us wish we knew more about Israel but are embarrassed by our lack of information. We reason we’re better off keeping our mouths shut than misstating facts or making fools of ourselves. For others of us, we fear that our thoughts and feelings are not of the approved party line and sense that we are better off not saying anything. There, too, are those among us who are vaguely embarrassed if not intimated by what we read in the press and figure that quiet is the best policy.

All these thoughts and feelings have their degrees of legitimacy. The causes for our silence are many and they not all our own faults. Over the years, there has been silence from the official community when vocal objection was needed, evasion on tough issues, pandering to moneyed interests, neglect of educational opportunities and lack of political will that would allow alternative viewpoints to be aired.

But the silence, coupled with criticism from within and without the Jewish community created a breach in American public support for Israel. Fairly or not, it is we Jews who are the public face of support for Israel. This is the heart of our communal agenda. I don’t believe that any American Jew ever consciously wanted us to shoulder this burden on our own, but it is our special responsibility and events have proven it necessary. And as nature abhors a vacuum, so too does politics. When Jewish voices lost their assuredness and unanimity after 1973, the cause of support for Israel was assumed by a then-small and seemingly fringe group of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians and Christian Zionists.

The flowering of Christian support for Israel initially appeared as a great boon to American Jews. No longer were we fighting this fight on our own! We had allies. After two generations of feeling isolated and often defensive, we Jews welcomed the chance to share the task and were happy to have allies on the question of why America should support Israel. Lately, the rise of these Christian partners was made sweeter for us as it was coupled with great political power and access when a religiously like-minded George W. Bush attained the White House.

It is fair to say that in the last six years, the State of Israel has enjoyed more uncritical support from Washington than at any previous time in its history. But politics is the art of compromise. The political advantage we grained came yoked to theological and social stances we didn’t support. Those Christians who share that agenda with us are, at best, equivocal about Israel. And those who vocally and unequivocally champion Israel’s cause in Washington and around the world trouble us in other ways. They are largely identified with the Christian evangelical and fundamentalist right. So, you see – we got caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. What we tried to ignore for a long time is the fact that the right’s support for Israel is part and parcel of an increasingly triumphal religious nationalism. Their agenda also includes an assault on many of the political and liberal values most cherished by American Jews: a woman’s right to chose, belief in the efficacy of social welfare programs, civil rights for gay and lesbian people and, above all, the separation of church and state. For generations, Jewish leaders have been vigilant guardians of this separation, seeing it as key to Jewish security in this country. Yet our Jewish leaders – until recently – have been quiescent on the social issues, claiming that a seemingly inviolable president ought not be crossed and, more poignantly, that this alliance with the Christian right over Israel is more important to our long term survival and that any schemes involving prayer in schools or plans to “take America back”. Christian extremism, we were told, had to be tolerated in the name of a greater good. Friends, we have been too tolerant for too long. It was our mixed feelings, our lack of knowledge, and our fear of public disagreement all combined to keep the bulk of American Jews silent on the question of support for Israel.

One group that took full advantage of our silence and our communal leaders’ narrow focus on Israel is Christians United for Israel – CUFI. Headed by the Rev. John Hagee, CUFI has been feted by Jewish Community Federations across the country and, in Washington, by AIPAC, the American Israel Political Action Committee. Closely allied with groups such as Focus on the Family and touted by Rabbi Yechiel Z. Eckstein and his International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, Hagee and his colleagues do support Israel but they so in their own way – a way that we don’t. They see things very differently than we do. They see Israel in a way that will, I believe, bring Israel and world Jewry far more harm than good.

Their support for Israel of which I am afraid is extremist on many fronts. They are extremist on issues of Israeli-Palestinian politics. They are extremist on issues of territory and borders. They are extremist on issues which most of American Jews – and the current Israeli government – are moderate.

And all this is exclusive of their theological beliefs which include the one that teaches that Jews and Israel and support for Israel are necessary to the world in order to hasten Jewish conversion and disappearance as a precursor to the establishment of Christian world hegemony. On the way to that goal, other infidels (liberal Christians, Catholics and Muslims included) will be collateral damage, whose deaths can be easily tolerated in the service of the greater good.

But back to Israel: For John Hagee, support for Israel is a Biblical mandate. At a recent event in Virginia, Pastor Hagee at once claimed support for Israel and condemnation of any land for peace deal. Part of the reason we have been too quiet on support for Israel is because we are moderates when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian politics. We do not believe that expulsion or domination is the answer. We seek a two-state solution. We seek ways to encourage co-existence. Yes, we care passionately. But we cannot let him or others speak for us. We have been silent because the message we hear from Hagee and his Jewish supporters is not fully our own. Perhaps, we ask in our insecurity, are we wrong?

No, dear friends, we are not. It is the voices of extremism that are wrong, that are noxious and that must be disavowed. Incidentally, the current Israeli government endorses the idea of land for peace. Can one claim to support Israel and simultaneously attack the platform of its government? I think not. We must end our silence. What we stand for is what the majority of Israelis and Americans (the Bush administration included) stand for. We stand for voices of Jewish authenticity based in tradition. These voices and teachings lead us not to vilification and separation but toward peace and holiness.

Eckstein and other Jewish apologists (Ze’ev Chafets, most notably) have insisted on adhering to these extremist positions while dismissing theological beliefs as mere eccentricities, worth ignoring in the service of the greater good:. The dis-ease many of us “Jews in the pews” felt in response to our erstwhile allies is dismissed by them as the wishy-washy reactions of pseudo liberals who were too unsure of themselves to fight the necessary fight on their own. At some times, concerns raised were hushed by Eckstein and others who claim, and I quote, “Rhetoric can create an anti-Jewish feeling among good Bible-believing Christians.” Ah – my favorite reason to keep quiet: we can’t upset the gentiles.

Dear friends we don’t have to be shah/shtilled into the shadows anymore. We are free, secure and valued American citizens. The days of going along to get along are over and we will not go back. That doesn’t mean that we are free to ignore the issue. We aren’t. In fact, we have a lot of work to do. We have to speak up. And before that, we’d better educate ourselves. We need to know that voices of moderation do not a priori lack conviction. We need to advocate for building our communities and strengthening Israel by owning our authenticity. We must know that we will not ensure the continuity of the Jewish people by siding with bigots.

What will ensure the continuity of this people is what we are doing: living in community with one another, striving for God and holiness, daring to speak our truths and praying for blessings on our efforts. May this only increase as this new year begins. Ken Yihe Ratzon. May it be so. Amen.

Rosh HaShannah 5768 - September 12, 2007

Rabbi Susan B. Stone
Temple Beth Shalom

Would anyone in the congregation who has been on an airplane in the last six months please raise his or her hand? Thank you. Would you please keep it in the air if you believe that you are owed an apology? You can put them down now. For those of you who haven’t flown lately, I don’t want you to feel left out. So, please raise your hand if you’ve lately driven in rush hour traffic, tried to return a shoddily made garment or toy, had your car recalled or tried to get technical help for your computer. I won’t even ask what percentage of you is owed an apology.

Since this is the season when amends and apologies are much on our mind, I thought it might be instructive to take a little trip down apology lane in contemporary America and see what we find. Perhaps it can help us with our personal tasks this season.

Tied for my favorite apologizer this year are Michael Nifong, former District Attorney of Durham County in North Carolina and Don Imus, former radio personality. Nifong, you might remember all but drew and quartered three Duke University students with false accusations of rape. After refusing to review the defendants’ case and going out of his way to hide exculpatory DNA evidence, Nifong claimed, “There’s no doubt in my mind that she was raped and assaulted at this location.” Such certainty was patently lacking in his apology which began this way: “To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect…” To the extent?!

But Don Imus couldn’t even find the pronoun I in his apology. After racially and sexually insulting the entire women’s basketball team from Rutgers University with three very precise words, Imus said, “Want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning regarding the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry.” We? Maybe he had a silent chorus with him. Or maybe it was MSNBC, his broadcast station. Their words also fell far short of anything resembling civility. Their statement in response to Imus’ comments was as follows.” While simulcast by MSNBC, ‘Imus in the Morning’ is not a production of the cable network and is produced by WFAN Radio. As Imus makes clear every day, his views are not those of MSNBC. We regret that his remarks were aired on MSNBC and apologize for these offensive comments.” Lovely. Nothing like taking responsibility. Did you notice that neither Don Imus nor MSNBC ever used the first person singular pronoun? There was not a shred of genuine regret or acknowledgement of personal responsibility in either of these statements.

But these are only the most recent, albeit egregious, cases. In our popular culture, maybe it goes back to Teddy Kennedy and the bridge at Chappaquiddick Island in 1969. His statement was a masterpiece of half told truths crafted to deflect blame. My favorite line in his statement was, “Today…I felt morally obligated to plead guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident.” Not that he actually did anything wrong – just a moral obligation to plead guilty to something that wouldn’t carry jail time or too many political consequences. Or maybe it was Enron. Or President Clinton’s outright lies. Sad to say, I think that the one of the better, most honest and appropriate public apologies issued of late came from, of all people, Mel Gibson. He deserves a bit of a longer quote in this hall of shame I am exhibiting for you. Last August, Mr. Gibson stated, “There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said…” And he continued: “I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one on one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.”

Yes, this is better. But friends it is not really enough - there has to be more. Away from the camera lenses and the glare of television lights, there is. There is a sane way, a clear way, a Jewish way to repent. Obviously, repentance is what this season is all about. But sometimes I think that we rabbis and teachers have not done as good a job as we might in teaching the how of repentance. Oh we’ve done fine in letting folks know that it is the time for repenting. And we’ve done a fair job in getting you here - into the sanctuary - to hear and recite the formal words of repentance. But I don’t think we’ve done well enough when it comes to teaching each other how to do it. By default, I fear, some people have the idea that Don Imus or Mel Gibson or even the President of the United States can be a role model in this area. Sorry – they can’t, they shouldn’t be and they don’t even belong on the same screen as our traditional approach.

Our tradition is both simple and profound when it comes to repentance. According to the great sage, Rav Moshe ben Maimonides, otherwise known as the Rambam, true repentance is only three steps away. First of all, he teaches, don’t wait until Yom Kippur! It may be tempting to put off repenting until the Day of Atonement, but don’t delay. To demonstrate the proper repentant spirit, make amends right away. Secondly, make reparations towards the person you injured. Offer apologies and offer payment for any physical damage incurred. Finally, make amends with God by acknowledging carelessness, expressing remorse and making a commitment to not repeat the same action in the future. Friends, that’s it. Do it – do it promptly, do it directly, and do it without obfuscation, evasion or half truths.

Let’s walk through a scenario to see how this might work. A scene from modern life: the all-too-familiar college or domestic happenstance, “Whoops, my mochaccino just spilled on your keyboard.” To demonstrate the proper spirit, make amends right away. Even if the spill happened during spring semester, it is better to come clean now than to put it off until the High Holidays. Secondly, make reparation toward the injured person. Offer apologies and payment for all damages incurred. The damages should probably be greater if mom was putting the finishing touches on her masters’ thesis due later that day and could probably be reduced if the coffee simply stained the machine and didn’t seep into the printer’s innards. Finally, make amends with God by a) acknowledging carelessness, b) expressing remorse and c) making a commitment to be more careful in the future with mochaccinos and all other spillable beverages.

These three steps are useful in terms of immediate repentance and also elucidate some general principles about Judaism. Even with all our teachings and writings and theorizing, Judaism is all about action. Thus, the active, verbal apology that forms is the basis of Maimonides’ first step. The call for action is captured in Rabbi Hillel’s famous quotation, “If not now, when?” Moreover, in everyday life, Judaism seeks to enhance communication among people (step 2) and between people and God (Step 3).

Communication is the bottom line. Communication is the key to repentance and communication was what was so sorely lacking in the earlier examples I offered. Nifong and Imus and the others didn’t really want to communicate, they wanted to make their cases. They wanted to have their say, get their point across and – more often than not – cover their behinds. What Judaism requires of us is communication. Even a forthright, “I’m sorry” is just the first step. You know the teaching: we are to go to the person whom we’ve harmed and talk to him or her. We are to tell them what we did wrong and that we are sorry and that we will endeavor not to do it again. This is not repentance by press release or statement. It is action and it is one-on-one, face-to-face communication. We have to hear the person’s response and will then, most likely, respond to it. Only when that is accomplished can we encounter God – again, one-on-one and face-to-face (as it were) – on Yom Kippur.

Truly apologizing is never easy. It is humbling (but not humiliating) and sometimes awkward. It requires a leveling of pride and a determination to go to it. But once we do, the rewards are great. Once we acknowledge our shortcomings, express remorse and at least begin to make reparations, we can be delighted. First of all, we have restored the pathway to a real relationship with another person. We have given them back the dignity our wrong took from them. Additionally, we are free of what burdened us. We can look the world in the eye once more. We can meet each day with our heads held high. We can find peace. We can come toward Yom Kippur, ready to tackle the day. We can feel the nearness of our God once again.

In other words, we can hope and pray and act for a Shanah Tovah u’M’tukah – a good and a sweet year. Ken Yihe Ratzon. May it be so. Amen.