Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

The Flood story resonates with much of late twentieth century experience. There is something ironic about Cain and his descendants. Cain, the murderer, becomes the founder of civilization. Whereas Cain unintentionally killed his brother in the heat of rage, his descendants killed with purpose and design. Cain’s descendants made killing and exploitation of the weak into an art form. Additionally, man’s alienation from his brother leads to his alienation from God and from nature.

These issues are present today, as we witness the erosion of the earth’s ozone layer, which has already affected the climate in many parts of the world. Of course no natural evil can even hope to compare to the ubiquitous threat of moral evil–especially when it is sanctioned by religion! It is amazing that contemporary scholars seemed to be more intent on focusing on the problem of natural evil instead facing the real issues of our troubled times–moral evil.

In our multicultural environment that champions the philosophy of multiculturalism, I wonder: How can anyone say that a culture that executes its women in the name of religion, or threatens to kill people who fail to show up to religious services with death, is equal to a society that promotes egalitarian values? Our inability to see through the mist of political correctness, combined with our refusal to stand up for the millions of people who are repressed by sexism constitute one of the great moral challenges of our time. To date, civilization itself seems to be asleep at the wheel–even now as Iran threatens to export the technology of death to the highest bidder.

Back to our story!!

Even the most beautiful structure requires a strong foundation for its support than just bricks and stone.  The rise and fall of civilizations can also be traced to structural weaknesses within their own society’s values. The story of Noah’s times is an eternal testament to the human capacity to self-destruct and illustrates the timeless truth: Man is the only species that habitually preys on its own kind.

I am reminded of an old quote:  Someone once asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought of Western civilization, he replied, “I think it would be an excellent idea­.” Despite our technological progress, we are still ethically living in the caves. Here in the Torah, is a clear description of the signs that accompany the imminent collapse of a civilization. Social upheavals are almost always manifestations of inner turmoil, of tensions and frustrations within, of fears, anxieties, worries, wild urges, and impulses.  This was no less true in ancient times than it is today.

But even a depraved society is not without a vestige of good people living in its midst. Out of this crumbling world emerged one person whose strength of personality was quietly able to resist the tide of violence, cruelty, and sexual exploitation. In the biblical mythos of Genesis, one man stood apart as a nonconformist—such a man was Noah. In what way, therefore, was Noah blameless? Why was he whole when the rest of society had gone to pieces? The answer is the quality of peacefulness and integrity that refused to die. He was, in the parlance of the Torah, a צַדִּיק (tsaddîq), one who strove to be honest in all his interactions with people—Noah was a just and ethical man.

Can one person save the world? The Torah answers emphatically, “Yes!”

6:9 נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק — Noah was a righteous man— I for one have never liked the translation “righteous,” because  צַדִּיק (tsaddîq) is someone whose behavior is wholly given over to the pursuit of צֶדֶק truth and integrity, without any partiality to the persons he is interacting with (Lev. 19:15). Such a person avoids commercial fraud and deception (Lev. 19:36). The צַדִּיק is one who truly does not deviate from the ethical in all of his or her personal relationships. Noah was a just man in both his personal conduct and his character. But can one man make a difference in the world? Rabbi Haim of Volozhin (1749–1821), the great Talmudist and mystic, argues that one certainly can! Not only that, one just man can affect the destiny of an entire world. He writes: Continue Reading

“. . . but for Cain and his offering he had no regard” (Genesis 4:5)

One of the most important modern biblical commentators and theologians, Claus Westermann, suggests that God’s choice of one brother over the other is due to the inscrutable nature of God’s discretion. “God’s disregard for Cain’s sacrifice does not go back to Cain’s attitude nor to a sacrifice that was not right nor to an incorrect way of offering the sacrifice. It is saying something about the immutable; it happens so.”[1] God maintains His right to choose whoever is worthy in His eyes: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Exod. 33:19). In other words, God’s choice was essentially inscrutable and capricious. Donald Gowan recasts Westermann’s thesis in succinct and clearer theological terms. The story of the brothers underscores a problem that we see frequently in life–the problem of unexplainable inequality and explains:

Two persons seem equally qualified; one finds work and the other does not. One takes good care of health and gets a severe illness; another breaks all the rules and leads a healthy life. One finds love and friendship from companions; another must struggle daily with unpleasant people. The examples could be multiplied without end. And the reactions vary greatly. I believe the issue raised in Genesis 4:3–7 is precisely the question of how one reacts to the inequalities of life. Some do not ask why but just put up with inequalities as best they can. Others attribute them to luck or fate and may curse their luck. But some see their lot as a matter of injustice and are inclined to blame God for their lack of success. The anger that may result, either from blaming luck or blaming God, has the potential of being directed against society in general or certain favored individuals specifically.

Gowan’s interpretation is intriguing, especially because of its theological relationship to the book of Job. The fact that Abel’s offering was received did not mean that he would have a life of ease and comfort, for being chosen often carries a personal price. Although Abel’s sacrifice was accepted, he was killed! For the Israelite audience listening to this story for the first time, this message must have come across as rather unsettling—there are no ironclad guarantees for those choosing to follow in God’s ways; in the real world, there is a degree of paradox one must be prepared to accept.

Yet despite the philosophical depth of this analysis, there are serious objections that can be raised against Westermann’s (and by extension—Gowan’s) thesis, that God’s acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and rejection of Cain’s was predicated on the mystery of Divine election. Had this been the case, the Torah would not have disclosed the details regarding Abel’s sacrifice, namely that Abel offered his firstlings as well as their fat portions—both of which are details that could have been omitted were the choice defined simply because God chose Abel. Were the election of Abel based merely on the inscrutable will of God, a foregone conclusion that Cain could never hope to change, then why would God encourage Cain that, with an improved attitude, he would surpass his brother? No conversation between God and Cain should have ensued. It would have been more apropos for God to have been silent. This would certainly lead one to think that the Divine choice was arbitrary. The silence of the Divine would have been most telling. Continue Reading

Some time ago in November of 2009, the Vatican assembled an array of scientists and theologians to discuss the religious implications of extraterrestrial life. The conference was organized by Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. What made this gathering so special is the Vatican’s willingness to specifically discuss the ramifications such a discovery would exert on the faith community.

The Vatican’s conference  is in some ways very ironic.  The brilliant 17^th century thinker and Dominican friar, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting that the universe is truly infinite (much like the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus wrote in his Fragments, and Rabbi Hasdai Crescas later conjectured sometime in the  early16^th century). Among his other “heretical” beliefs included the possibility that the universe possessed other planets that were teeming with life, much like our earth.

The Spanish Inquisition did not care much about his theories. Although his body went up in smoke, his ideas did not. I am surprised the Vatican did not issue an apology to his descendants, but that is another matter.

Still and all, I wonder whether the soul of Bruno is glistening with the knowledge that today’s Vatican has finally received the torch of truth he offered so many centuries ago.  One of the presenters, however, astrophysicist Prof Paul Davies commented on the religious implications of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life: “If you look back at the history of Christian debate on this, it divides into two camps. There are those that believe that it is human destiny to bring salvation to the aliens, and those who believe in multiple incarnations,” Davies pointed out that the multiple incarnations theory, the idea that multiple examples of Jesus Christ would be found in the universe “is a heresy in Catholicism.”

Needless to say the presence of extraterrestrial life raises other questions with respect to Original Sin; would such creatures who never heard of Jesus Christ be exempt from Catholic salvation? Pelagius, Augustine’s greatest nemesis would most certainly scoff at the question since all human beings are as innocent as Adam and Eve were on the day they were born. Continue Reading

Yes, it isn’t everyday a miracle happens—but one did just the other week.

Fewer stories gripped our collective imagination this past week like the miraculous rescue of the 33 men trapped in one of the Chilean mines. Pitted against the forces of death surrounding these workers, they emerged triumphant and renewed.

When thinking about this amazing story, I began thinking about the significance of resurrection—as a spiritual metaphor. Most people regard resurrection as the spiritual birth of the individual amidst the forces of death that surround the soul. This understanding has a venerable tradition.  However, there is a deeper meaning behind this particular root metaphor.  The Torah enjoins us to choose life whenever possible, and the leadership of Chile did exactly that–they did everything in their power to act nobly and heroically. Resurrection is also a call to radical action; it is a divine imperative to create life and restore hope whenever and wherever possible. In other words, death must not have the final word.

Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera and his government made the miners’ rescue their top priority. Work began immediately on drilling a 28-inch hole down to the rescue chamber to extract the survivors. No expense or effort was spared, and technical help came in from all around the world. Throughout the drama unfolding, families everywhere maintained a silent but painful  vigil, as  food, water and other supplies were lowered down to the survivors through a smaller hole.

The story teaches that the belief that the human race has evolved through survival of the fittest cannot adequately explain the altruism  displayed by these miners. Perhaps it can offer a superficially plausible explanation for  “cooperation.” But what about caring about someone outside your immediate kinship group, much less being willing to sacrifice your well-being for theirs? Doubtful. Richard Dawkins’ “selfish gene” would demand to be the first person out of that mine.  By the same token, the “selfish gene” would not have even made the miners’ rescue a national priority. Yes, we can rise above our evolutionary tendency for looking out for Number 1. In a world where there is so much evil, it is heartening to see what the power of goodness can do. . .

Other Thoughts: Confronted by Death

Rabbinic tradition speaks about the imagery of the cave as a womb. A biblical citation, illustrates this truth. In Jonah 2, we read about Jonah’s experience. Note the similarities to those of the Chilean miners:

“But the LORD sent a large fish, that swallowed Jonah; and he remained in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

From the belly of the fish Jonah said this prayer to the LORD, his God. Out of my distress I called to the LORD, and he answered me;

From the midst of the nether world I cried for help, and you heard my voice.

For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the sea,

and the flood enveloped me;All your breakers and your billows passed over me.

Then I said, “I am banished from your sight! Yet would I again look upon your holy temple.”

The waters swirled about me, threatening my life;

the abyss enveloped me;seaweed clung about my head.

Down I went to the roots of the mountains;

the bars of the nether world were closing behind me forever,

But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD, my God. Continue Reading

This past week, I had the opportunity to participate at my first Board of Rabbis meeting that took place in the San Diego Jewish Federation. Meeting colleagues is always an interesting experience. One gets to see a chronological gap separating the very young rabbinic from the more seasoned and mature rabbinic leaders like myself.

After the meeting, one of the older colleagues began an interesting discussion regarding how his synagogue prepares its b’nei mitzvah (plural for many Bar/Bat Mitzvah). Since they have anywhere between 60-90 students a year, no one particular student is allowed to “monopolize” the bimah since everyone is considered “equal” on Shabbat.

 What an interesting idea! Who can argue with such lofty democratic thoughts?  I recall hearing a similar response from other colleagues over the years, but I must wonder whether such an approach is indeed a good idea or not. Yes, in a large congregation, there are bound to be logistical problems galore. However, that being said, if I were a parent of a future Bar or Bat Mitzvah, I would ask myself the following question: “Would it better serve the education of my children if my family joined a smaller congregation–one where my child would have the opportunity to do more than the perfunctory maftir or haftorah?”

 Think about it. As Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato writes in the introduction of his classical work, Mesillat Yesharim, “I have not written this book to remind people what they do not know concerning Jewish ethics, but to remind them about the obvious truths that everyone knows but due to outside pressures, forget these truths from time to time . . .”

 I implore Jewish parents everywhere: Do not shortchange your children’s Jewish education. What can possibly make a parent or community more proud than to see one of its students master an evening, morning, or afternoon Shabbat service?

 Synagogues often get into habit of producing benai’ mitzvah as if they were on a Detroit factory line; this approach is wrong-headed and unwise. I realize that parents see these larger country-club synagogues as a symbol of their economic or social success, but isn’t time for parents to wonder: How can I help my child get the most out of his/her spiritual experience? Yes, enquiring minds demand a thoughtful answer.

 Perhaps the smaller and emergent congregations deserve a second look.

 Take the simple example of the Bar Mitzvah student who labors mightily toward that special day. But as a thoughtful Jew, what are some of the essential lessons we wish to instill in our young people so that they might grow up as conscientious Jews? In my experience, I encourage every youngster to give three speeches: a brief synopsis on the Torah portion, a synopsis on the haftorah reading—and most importantly—a personal reflection on what it means to become a Bar or Bat Mitzvah, aside from doing an important part of the religious service. Of course, some will do more, while others will do less. It is the process that is important. It is vital that no child feel as if s/he is just going through the motions. We can do better–and we must! Continue Reading