Beit Emanuel 5779 High Holidays Publication

1

Beit Emanuel Progressive Synagogue High Holiday’s Publication Tishrei 5779 – September 2018

Front cover: Mosaic art at the Foyer, Stella Baecher and Lee Bross, 1967.

Back Cover: Cheder (Religion School) learners and Shana Tova cards made by them.

38 Oxford Road, Parktown.

Email: office@beitemanuel.co.za Phone: 00 +27(0)11 646 6170 Fax to email: 086 613 8181 Letters: PO Box 1190, Houghton 2041.

2

Beit Emanuel High Holidays Publication Tishrei 5779 – September 2018 Table of Contents Chairperson’s message Dr. Paul Davis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……3 Rabbi’s Message Rabbi Sa’ar Shaked…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 “Justice in South Africa—An Urgent Duty on All “ Justice Edwin Cameron……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6 “African Traditional Religions - basic introduction and contemporary practices” Dr. Nontando Hadebe……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 “Should we be singing Shlomo Carlebach’s melodies in the age of #MeToo” Professor Simonne Horwitz………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 “Spiritual Journey and Standing up to values” Rabbi Sa’ar Shaked ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25

Pictorial memories from the ending year………………………….……………………………………………………31

“The Old shall dream dreams and the Youth shall see visions” – Shabbat Sermons by our members: Alliastair Balutto / Parashat Shemini…………………………………………………………………………………………33 Robert E. Bocking / Parashat Shoftim……………………………………………………………………………………….36 Adam Bertoldi / Parashat Bereshit……………………………………………………………………………………………37 Reuben Fleishch / Parashat Noah……………………………………………………………………………………………..40 Ethan Lewis / Parashat Toldot…………………………………………………………………………………………………..43 Nimrod Shaked / Parashat Yitro………………………………………………………………………………………………..46 Emmylou Savage / Parashat Nasso……………………………………………………………………………………………47

Translations from Modern Hebrew Poetry Rabbi Sa’ar Shaked in association with Professor Merle Williams……………………………………………..49

3

Chairperson’s Greeting and message Dr. Paul Davis Shanah Tovah to you all, Beit Emanuel strives to be an embracing, enquiring and relevant spiritual sanctuary for all.

A place of debate and conviction, of deeds and action, a quiet space to seek our own tranquility and balance. A place of nourishment, a challenge and a refuge.

For us to dare to presume to be a light unto nations or humanities moral reservoir, or to honor the notion of justice! Justice! requires so much more from each of us. We walk a difficult road, chosen or given. We also strive to be Jewish and relevant, South African and Diasporian, big on ideas and words, bigger on deeds.

For 65 years in South Africa our deep commitment to these notions live in the bricks and mortar of Beit Emanuel, in its Torah’s, its rabbis, in those who came before us, and us.

Of late, have we become rather complacent and perhaps even greedy? Taking more than we give, disinterested rather than involved, seeking outside rather than creating within. Progressive Judaism is a potent nexus not only for life’s codes but also as an agent for considered change and revelation. It’s a very demanding path.

Our freshly articulated vision statement and our competent and committed leadership, I hope, will prove the catalyst to a new-found vigor not to just sustain Beit Emanuel but to enable it to grow and flourish as it moves to meet at least our own expectations of what it can be.

Our High Holidays Publication this year covers a variety of events which we’ve hosted since last Rosh Hashana. You will find inside the 2017 annual Franz Auerbach lecture delivered by Justice Cameron, who spoke about justice as a common duty for us all to uphold and embrace.

Two of our JTALKs have been included in this publication for you to engage with. The first is by Dr. Hadebe on African Spirituality. A talk which was not only very informative but also raised such issues as being both spiritual in a Jewish and an African sense at the same time. The other JTalk, given by Prof. Simonne Horwitz deals with the question whether we should be singing Rabbi Carlebach tunes in our services, given his being implicated in the #metoo campaign. We’ve also included several Bar/Bat Mitzva sermons delivered by both adults and youngsters.

Take as much from Beit Emanuel as it can offer you and give to it as much as you can. I take this moment to wish you all good health and a peaceful and productive 5778.

Kindest thoughts and regards, Dr. Paul Davis 4

Blessing for the new year 5779 Rabbi Sa’ar Shaked, SAAPR chair Judaism strives to releases us from the tyranny of time. We are mortal, for sure, but our passing days are elevated from the mere flow by our conscious deeds. The current of Jewish time becomes our mission. It is designed so that our days will acquire meaning, dignity and congruence.

Our faith triumphs over time by unifying it into a meaning, which is stronger than a blind destiny.

We align ourselves with those eternal moments and we are sanctified by them, as the blessing states: “‫"מקדש הזמנים‬, “God who sanctifies the times”.

Although a week separates Rosh HaShana from Yom Kippur, they are one entity, standing for the idea that our time on earth can and should be our story. It is the narrative of our precious freedom to create who we are.

Rosh HaShana is the day when we, humans, were created. From the perspective of the heavens and the earth, it is just another day dawning. But Rosh HaSana does not represent what already exists, but the potential yet to come. We are invited to be recreated, rejuvenated, regenerated. It is we who are considered, not the heavens and the earth. It is we who are called to take a decision, to write in the book of life the chapter that only we can write.

The second half of this wholeness is Yom Kippur. Time always rushes forward, from yesterday through today into tomorrow. We can’t reverse our deeds, but we can – and this is the great victorious paradox the faith offers us – Teshuva, turning back, returning. We are commanded and required to step aside from the flow of time in order to reflect on our lives. We are elevated towards God – elevated above the predictability of time. Just as Rosh HaShana invites us to decide instead of simply being subjugated by time, so on Yom Kippur we are called to return to the source instead of surrendering to the inevitable. What had passed cannot be changed, but teshuva - engaging in thoughtful introspection – brings Kapara – repentance, consolidation, inner-reconciliation.

We have been put into this world, but we are not mere passive elements in it. Our gratitude for the privilege of being alive is much stronger than time. It overcomes forgetting, it makes what has been precious. There is goodness and love, worthwhile to be endorsed. Our true joy comes from gratitude and the desire to share our joy with others. This is the case with the festivity of Sukkot. Our harvest has been collected, the solemn moment is over, and we are rejoicing, as God commanded us. Our whole community is delighting, manifesting its concord, its harmony and its diversity.

May this coming High Holidays season bring us all joy, peace and love.

May it inspire us toward sacred living.

In friendship, Rabbi Sa’ar Shaked.

5

Justice in South Africa—An Urgent Duty on All

Judge Edwin Cameron, Constitutional Court of South Africa  As many of us know, Franz Auerbach was an exceptional man. We honor Franz Auerbach’s memory tonight because he was a brave voice for social justice. As a refugee from Nazi Germany, he understood that government and advocacy groups are not the sole custodians of justice. Rather, he placed the task of justice plainly in the hands of the individual.

As a Jewish man living through apartheid, he urged his fellow Jews not to neglect their responsibility to speak out: “to be silent,” he wrote, “is to betray our history, our religion and our duty to the land that gave us refuge.”** . Tonight, I would like to explore justice, not only as a right we claim for ourselves, but as a duty resting on us all. In doing so, I have chosen as my theme the life of another Jewish caretaker of justice: Louis D. Brandeis.*** Brandeis’s father, Adolph, had left Prague for America eight years earlier, after the liberal revolutions of 1848 were crushed. Adolph was a fervent supporter of the revolutions and had hoped to join, though typhoid fever kept him from participating. Brandeis’s mother, Frederika, was born into a highly educated family and passed on her love of reading and music to her children.

Brandeis, who became the first Jewish justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, spent his life working to create a society in which the individual could better himself, and in so doing, become an instrument of justice. Brandeis’s



notions of both personal and legal duty have much to offer us South Africa today.

Louis Brandeis’s impact on the study and practice of law is hard to overstate. He developed the idea of the right to privacy and he pioneered the idea of free speech as a societal good.

Louis Brandeis was born of German immigrants in Louisville, Kentucky in 1856. He was raised in a completely secular household. The family exchanged gifts on Christmas and were castigated for riding on the high holidays. Both his mother’s and father’s families were adherents of Frankism, a persecuted sect of Judaism that followed Jacob Frank, a selfproclaimed messiah of the 18th Century.

Frankism threw off the yoke of tradition and paved the way for progressive Judaism. Though the Brandeis house was unapologetically secular, Louis was influenced by the Sabbath table of his uncle, Lewis Dembitz. The young Brandeis held his uncle, a lawyer and Talmudic scholar, in such high esteem that he eventually changed his own middle name from David to Dembitz.

Inspired by his uncle, Brandeis enrolled in Harvard Law School in 1875. Though he lacked a college degree, he thrived there. He graduated before the age of 21 and earned the highest marks in the history of the school. After clerking, he spent the next 37 years in private practice until he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Extracts from the Annual Franz Auerbach Memorial Interfaith Lecture at Beit Emanuel on the 14 September 2017.

Auerbach “Our Responsibility,” Etz Chayim News 2, no. 6 (Sept. 1960) (cited in Gilbert From Things Lost: Forgotten Letters and the Legacy of the Holocaust (Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 2017. *** Much of the information on Brandeis found within this lecture comes from Rosen Louis, D. Brandeis: American Prophet (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016). **

6

Brandeis was – like us all – a product of his time. In the United States, the turn of the 19th century was marked by an immense consolidation of power that accompanied industrialization. By 1911, for example, it was reported that J.P. Morgan controlled 40 percent of all capital in America.

As U.S. monopolies became stronger, the American worker remained disenfranchised.

Industrialization and mechanization brought about long factory hours and harsh working conditions. And U.S. courts sided with big business. They struck down worker-protection legislation on constitutional grounds.

As Brandeis came into his own as a lawyer, he observed the law being used to protect the interests of the big and powerful at the expense of the vulnerable and the poor.

Holmes has, justly, become one of the most famous in US legal history.

In the midst of what was known as the Lochner era, Brandeis emerged as the defender of “the little guy”. He became known as “the people’s lawyer.” Equipped with a deep ethical sense and commitment to the value of individual liberty, Brandeis took on giants like J.P. Morgan and other monopolists.

Brandeis became known, not only for his commitment to justice, but for his ingenuity as a lawyer – and particularly for his reliance on facts to support his arguments. Before Brandeis, lawyers traditionally would file one “brief” presenting an argument before a judge.

Brandeis submitted two. The first was a traditional brief – but the second contained a compendium of statistics and studies that powerfully supported his argument.

In a case whose infamy extends to today, Lochner v New York,4 the U.S. Supreme Court in 1905 struck down a New York law stipulating that bakery employees could work no more than 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. They held that the law violated the US Constitution’s due process clause 5 which safeguards “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken [ie arrested or deprived of liberty], nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

This clause, they reasoned, contained a right of “freedom of contract”. This reasoning led to the dismantling of many laws designed to protect the health and safety of workers. The judges said the maximum hours law was an “unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract.”

The decision was by a majority of five judges to four. The dissenting judges strongly rejected this view. The opinion of Oliver Wendell

For example, only three years after Lochner, which dealt with maximum working hours, Brandeis convinced the court to uphold a law restricting working hours for women. He did so by amassing more than 100 pages of US and European labor studies –showing the negative effects of long working hours on women.

Brandeis revolutionized the field of constitutional law as an attorney—and later as a judge—with his reliance on what have come to be known as “Brandeis Briefs”. In the US, “Brandeis Briefs” have been influential in landmark cases on desegregation and have played a central role in debates on capital punishment in the U.S. Today, human rights advocates around the world have embraced Brandeis’s visionary fact-based approach to advocacy. His influence extends to the court in which I now sit, the Constitutional Court. We often rely on amici curiae. This is on the basis that our duty in any particular case extends beyond identifying a winner and a loser. Our duty is broader – it is to the Constitution.

7

I explained this myself recently: “Constitutional litigation is not a game of win-or-lose in which winners must be identified for reward, and losers for punishment and rebuke. It is a process in which litigants and the courts assert the growing power of the Constitution by establishing its meaning through contested cases.” * In that quest, amici are indispensable, as rule 10 of the Constitutional Court Rules provides that a person may be admitted as an amicus either on the basis of the written consent of all the parties in the proceedings; or on application to the Chief Justice. The underlying principles governing the admission of an amicus in any given case, apart from the fact that it must have an interest in the proceedings, are whether the submissions to be advanced by the amicus are relevant to the proceedings and raise new contentions which may be useful to the Court. ** An amicus is not a party to litigation but is there to assist the Court because its decision may affect its interest. The amicus curiae joins in the proceedings—literally, as a “friend of the Court”—to provide its expertise on or interest in the matter. It may choose a side it wishes to join – or it may remain neutral. Sometimes the Court may ask it to urge a particular position.

And regardless of the side it joins, it is neither a loser nor a winner and is therefore generally not entitled to be awarded costs.

“Brandeis briefs”, from both parties and amici, force judges like myself to confront the material realities that the law deals with.

They force us to examine the law as it works in practice, rather than simply how it works in theory. Brandeis had a long, influential and

distinguished tenure on the US Supreme Court, of which he was a member for 23 years, from 1916 to 1939. Let me mention just his influence in the area of free speech. His work in this area is particularly relevant to our discussion tonight and it also provides a unique opportunity to see the evolution of Brandeis’s thought.

Brandeis is not the true forebear of US free speech jurisprudence—that title goes to Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously wrote that “the most stringent protection of free speech would protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater”. Holmes later articulated the idea that free speech was important for developing a “marketplace of ideas”*. Indeed, in Brandeis’s early years as a justice during World War I, he joined more than one opinion that convicted war opponents under a repressive “Espionage Act.”

*

in-a-theater argument was transformed into a defense of free speech. Holmes developed the idea of “free trade in ideas” within “the competition of the market” in his dissent in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919).

17 274 US 357 (1927),

See Estate Agency Affairs Board v Auction Alliance (Pty) Ltd and Others [2014] ZACC 3 at para 69 ** Certain Amicus Curiae Applications; Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign [2002] ZACC 13. * Schenk v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919). Nb: Holmes, in Schenk, went on to uphold the conviction. Over time the fire-

8

Over time and after the panic of the war subsided, Brandeis changed his views. These he memorably articulated in a concurring opinion in Whitney v. California. Miss Anita Whitney was a women’s suffrage advocate and member of the Socialist Party. She was convicted of violating a “criminal syndicalism law.” Though she did not herself advocate terrorism, she was found guilty of “assisting in organizing an association” to do so. Brandeis concurred in upholding her conviction, on technical grounds – but his opinion reads like a passionate dissent. Most important, he linked the right of free speech to the role of the citizen in a democratic society. His argument is compelling and inspiring. He wrote: “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their

faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a “fundamental principle of the American government.”. A year later Brandeis developed the right of privacy within the context of wiretapping, keeping in mind that “great menace to freedom”.** Why have I chosen Louis Brandeis as the hero of this lecture in honor of Franz Auerbach tonight?

There is a factual reason and a rather grander reason. The factual reason is that when Margaret Auerbach approached me on behalf of the shul to give this lecture, in April, I had to decline because work pressures and commitments were just too great. An American friend then sent me Jeffrey Rosen’s recently published biography of Brandeis. I read it in April and was profoundly taken with Brandeis’s life story. Shortly after that, I learned that Franz Auerbach’s widow, Noreen, Margaret’s mother, had died on April 19th. While I do not operate from a faith framework, particularly not a monotheistic framework, I did consider **

In Olmstead vs. United States Brandeis argued that the government should be prevented from using technology to peer into a man or woman’s home. Prophetically writing in 1928—before the age of internet and electronic surveillance—he feared that “Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring beliefs,

9

that the conjunction of these events – reading the Brandeis biography, and Margaret’s mother’s death – meant that fate was pointing inexorably at me to agree to do this lecture.

Hence Brandeis. The grander reason, as you already sense, is that Brandeis’s life offers deep lessons for us.

In words that echo Auerbach’s vision, Brandeis stressed that the Jewish inheritance of ideals of democracy and social justice-imposed duties on all Jews to lead individual lives worthy of their great inheritance while also respecting the rights of others.

Brandeis once said: “I am very ignorant in things Jewish…[but] recent experiences, public and professional, have taught me this: I find Jews possessed of those very qualities which we of the twentieth century seek to develop in our own struggle for justice and democracy; a deep moral feeling which makes them capable of noble acts; a deep sense of the brotherhood of man; and a high intelligence, the fruit of three thousand years of civilization.”* Brandeis had lessons for us there, too. To me, Brandeis’s life embodies three main lessons: -First, a commitment to rigorous hard work in the interest of others and of public causes; -Second, a deep suspicion of power and a commitment to protecting the weak and the vulnerable who are exposed to its abuses; and -Third, an abiding belief in the power of law to secure justice in society.

Our constitution this year is 23 years old. It is a grand and visionary document. It has been hailed as the world’s “most progressive thoughts and emotions.” According to Brandeis, citizens had a right of privacy to generate their own ideas in their own homes. He saw this right as a prerequisite to the duty of public discussion. * from Rosen Louis, Ibid, p. 147.

constitution”. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the US Supreme Court more than five decades after Brandeis left it, advised constitution-makers worldwide, not to look at the U.S. constitution, but to look at our, South African, Constitution.

The Constitution was born of a profound history of racial subordination, exclusion and injustices. Its objectives are expressly transformative —Its purpose is to transform South Africa into a society in which everyone has human dignity, equal rights and freedom, and minimum social benefits. The Constitution is remarkable in the breadth of its equality clause. This includes no fewer than 17 conditions that are expressly protected against unfair discrimination.

My own work in the 1980s and early 1990s included a struggle to include sexual orientation in the equality clause. We succeeded—not through my efforts as a lawyer, but through the brave efforts of activists like Sheila Lapinsky in Cape Town and Simon Nkoli in Johannesburg, who struggled on the streets, proudly as lesbians and gay men, for a future with dignity for all.

It was my privilege, at the end of 1994, after our constitution was adopted, to be appointed

by President Nelson Mandela as a judge—an openly gay man whose pride in himself was not held to disqualify him from public service.

That is no more than as it should be. But it belies a monstrous struggle across the entire African continent, where LGBTI persons are attacked, brutalized, imprisoned, and killed just for being who they are. The horror of this is not something I have to be heavy handed in *

See “The South Africa we pray for: State of Capture – Much more than corruption”, 22 May 2017, available in presentation form at https://www.scribd.com/presentation/348738950/SACCPresentation-on-state-capture#from_embed (accessed 12

10

conveying to a largely-Jewish audience. The Constitution promises us better, yet even its formal promises of equality have not been attained. Worse, the substantive promises of equality remain largely unrealized.

Although much has been achieved—more than constitutional skeptics are sometimes willing to grant—our country is still beset by dispossession, inequality, and injustice. Amidst all this, daiyenu. Had our sole afflictions impeding realization of the high goals of the Constitution been crime, corruption, and inequality, it would have been enough. Alas, they are not. We face what appears to be a much bigger crisis—one in which it is alleged that criminal syndicates seek to capture the state to loot it on a massive scale for their own ends. Two reports, one presented by church leaders and the other by academic analysts* suggest that criminal syndicates have very considerably infiltrated and already seized the apparatus of state power in South Africa for corrupt gain. If this is proved true – if even only part of it proves true – then dishonest leadership, corruption, mass looting of state entities and the destruction of independent institutions could see the demise of the ambitious and yet fragile venture that is the Constitution. We do not know the outcome of that struggle. There are committed forces of integrity who seek to resist the looting of the state. They seek to recommit governmental power to its proper purpose, which is the betterment of our country.

Part of the outcome will depend on forces that are beyond our control—the outcomes of

September 2017) and “Betrayal of the Promise: How South Africa is being Stolen”, May 2017, available at http://pari.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Betrayal-ofthe-Promise-25052017.pdf (accessed 12 September 2017).

elections or electoral conferences, the sway of political events and negotiations.

All this can operate as a tempting inducement to despair or inaction. Many people feel so dismayed by the extent of our problems that they want to give up—not only by external emigration, but by a form of internal escape, a type of emigration of the soul, into the immediate comforts and consolations of middle-class life.

Brandeis’s life counsels us otherwise. He was a man who grew up in difficult times. He lived through the end of slavery and saw his family’s and fellow citizens’ earnings recklessly ensnared by monopolists. He had every reason to be despondent. Yet, he was a tough human being, schooled in the hard realities of legal practice and politics. His own nomination became so dirty that the United States Senate scheduled its first public confirmation hearing ever. Barely veiled, and even explicit, antiSemitism sought to impede his confirmation.

The forces of anti-Semitic hatred, of monopolistic power, of inequality, of judicial and institutional inefficiency, that Brandeis confronted in his practice over 100 years ago, are by no means incomparable to the hostile forces all South Africans confront now.

Brandeis was undeterred by the ambit of the powers hostile to a just reordering of American society.

time one finds a well-warranted cause for complaint, what can I do about this?

Just last week, my colleague Mahomed Navsa, of the Supreme Court of Appeal, in a lecture at Stellenbosch, made a powerful plea to all of us.

He said: “Every citizen should be an activist in promoting constitutional values and ensuring that particularly the poor and the vulnerable are not exposed to the corrosive effects of abuse of power.”* He reminded us: “We ignore the poor and the vulnerable at our peril. The Constitution holds out a vision of a better society for all. If, after centuries of colonial and apartheid oppression, they continue to be isolated and denied a fair share of the wealth of the country and the benefits of state resources because of corruption and maladministration our democratic experiment will have failed spectacularly. History will never forgive us. We should understand that we need to reach across previous divides. We should not allow class, culture and creed to separate us. Nation building must mean that one’s concern should extend to the well-being of one’s nearest and furthest neighbor.”

Last year, at a glittering Sandton law firm, a promising young lawyer put up her hand and asked me a difficult question. What, she wanted to know, did I think she could do about our country’s problems?

He knew that each of us has resources and tools that can be used in the fight for justice.

He also knew that the decision whether to use those tools and to speak out against injustice is a choice that confronts each of us daily. This is not an abstract question. It is a highly practical question. It is as banal as asking oneself every

I inquired whether she would mind if I asked her a few questions. She said I could.

*

accessed via Legal Brief A Matter of Justice - SA ‘a nation of laws – not personalities Issue 73 (12 September 2017).

Justice Mahomed Navsa 13th Annual Human Rights Law Lecture (University of Stellenbosch 10 September 2017),

11

− So, I asked her whether she belonged to a political party—any political party [ANC, DA, EFF, UDM, COPE, or any other]—she said “no”.

− I then asked her whether she belonged to any civil society organization. She asked, “like what?” Like the Treatment Action Campaign, or Equal Education, which are two of Africa’s and our country’s noblest and impressive organizations channeling civic action. She said “no”. − I then asked her whether she belonged to any societies with benevolent objectives—perhaps a society fighting for the rights of the aged, or the sight-impaired, or those with muscular dystrophy. Again, she said “no”. − I then asked her whether she was interested in children. She said “yes”. I told her that there were children’s homes throughout Johannesburg that organize volunteer programs – these often require as little as 3-4 hours a month—one Saturday morning—to take a child or a group of kids out to a mall, or to a playground, or to a Ferris wheel. − Finally, I asked her whether she was willing to commit part of her earnings as a young lawyer to relieving others of their material burdens of life. She said she was. When I asked her if she had a structured program of income and wealth-sharing, she said no. I then mentioned the FIVE PLUS program that two law professors at UCT, Anton Fagan and Hugh Corder, have started.

This asks every South African with means to commit to giving 5% of pre-tax monthly income to poverty alleviation. In this way, we can contribute to providing shelter, and feeding hungry stomachs.

But I’m becoming heavy handed. My point is a simple one. To help change our society does not require heroic sacrifices. It requires only a minimal exertion to share the ample richness of our lives with those whose material position 12

is characterized by disadvantage and dispossession.

I do not say that this is enough. It is not. In addition, we need social programs of substance, far-reaching programs, to provide just access to resources and opportunities. My point is more limited, and it is modest. It is that nothing stops us, each of us, every day, from making a difference, now, to others’ lives. This is what Brandeis did, and it is what I know Franz Auerbach did. Brandeis’s life, like Auerbach’s showed a commitment to helping people in small ways. At an early age, he committed himself to work one hour per day on pro bono legal services.

To help change our society does not require heroic sacrifices, like Auerbach made, or Brandeis’s unmatched intelligence. It may require as little as making a well-directed contribution to a well-run organization with a well-conceived vision or spending a few hours a month with someone younger for whom your attention might be life changing.

These gestures may not be enough to save our country. If the forces at play are as cynical and ruthless as some commentators suggest they are, we may be in grave peril.

But that does not mean—cannot mean—that we should lay aside our commitment to fight for the good. This is our duty. It is a duty that accompanies the rights that have been guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

In the 1980s, as apartheid entered its endgame, as hit squads began to operate with terrifying effect and P.W. Botha’s government imposed draconian emergency laws, it seemed that we were heading for a precipice and that nothing could save us.

But we were saved. We were saved for this moment, this time, in September 2017, where

many fears, similarly, that we are heading for a precipice now, and nothing can save us.

What saved us in the 1980s was individual acts of will of committed, purposeful individuals— not only those like Sheila Lapinsky and Simon Nkoli—who committed their lives to political struggle – but also those, some in this congregation, who quietly helped run relief organizations in the townships, or who joined detainees’ support committees, or who helped fund the End Conscription Campaign, which with spectacular success opposed conscription of young white men to fight apartheid’s wars.

Dr. Franz Auerbach

We are no worse off now. On the contrary, we are far better off. We live in a functioning democracy, where, despite its glaring insufficiencies, the law still generally prevails and where we exercise rights unimaginable under apartheid.

Those rights did not come by divine command or royal gift. They came because people struggled for them with their effort and their sweat and sometimes their lives.

They are worth fighting to preserve now. But that depends on us. It depends on us deciding that we are not helpless or inert or inactive or too deeply plunged in despair to do anything. It requires only that we use what is available to us with ingenuity and determination and vision to claim the democracy and freedom that is our every entitlement.

Judge Louis Brandeis

Judge Edwin Cameron

13

African Traditional Religions- a basic introduction and contemporary practices Dr. Nontando Hadebe, St. Augustine College * .

Introduction Africa is the second largest continent with a total of 53 countries and thousands of ethnic groups each with its own culture and language. In this respect it is the most diverse continent and thus one cannot speak of a generic Africa or describe African Religions as monolithic.

African cultures and religions are inseparable. Over the past centuries encounters with other religions particularly Christianity and Islam as well as forces of oppression such as slavery, colonialism and apartheid impacted African Traditional Religions/Cultures (ATRs). Similarly, in contemporary society globalization continues to influence ATRs. However, despite these overwhelming forces, ATRs persist and thrive against all odds in the lives of many Africans who continue to integrate ATRs in their daily lives as evident in for example health seeking behavior, practices and life cycle ceremonies. ATRs also influence the religions that Africans have embraced such as Christianity particularly in African Initiated Churches who have fully integrated ATRs and Christianity. The project of integration also referred to as inculturation is also *

ongoing in missionary established churches also known as mainline churches such as Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran. This paper will attempt to discuss some common or shared aspects of ATRs noting that these are expressed differently in each ethnic group. To do this I will draw primarily from an article

by John Mbiti (2006) titled Aspects of African Heritage and Spirituality and will also cite other African scholars. I will also discuss evidence of the persistence of ATRs through health seeking behavior understanding of illness and multiple health worlds, life cycles and examples of inculturation in Christianity.

Some Common and shared characteristics of African Traditional Religions As mentioned in the introduction ATRs are diverse and not monolithic and this applies to the 11 common characteristics that will be discussed drawn from Mbiti’s article which will be summarized and condensed. ATRs are: • “Communal in origin, practices and self-propagation” with “no founder like Confucius, Buddha,

During our JTalks series we came into a vivid debate around what are African indigenous spiritual traditions and how – if - do they relate to the Jewish traditions. Dr. Nontando Hadebe was invited to give a JTalk in our Synagogue, which was relevant and profound for both sides. It is fundamental for South African Progressive Jews giving our rainbow values - to be an acting force promoting religious diversity in the African context.

14

•

•

•

•

15

Jesus or Muhammed” and are “rooted in language, custom, tradition, histories, cultures and worldviews” (2006:4) Oral and have no written texts but are preserved in ‘oral forms, rites and symbols’ including rituals, ceremonies, art, myths, legends, values, prayers, names of places and elders, ancestors, priests, healers who are the ‘custodians of knowledge and traditions’ (5) Predominantly monotheistic shared concept of God as ‘Creator and Upholder of the universe.’ The ‘belief in God is the central element and force that hold ATRs together’ (5). In almost all languages and cultures there is a name for God. The characteristics of God are rich and varied relating to nature and human relations e.g.

God described as parent, friend, mother, healer, guardian, protector, judge etc Characteristics of God include loving, kind, just, compassionate and merciful. Noteworthy is that in most ethnic groups there is no physical representation of God. There are sacred places associated with God but no representation.

Mystical power created by God that can be used for either good (healing) or evil (witchcraft).

Strong ethical and moral values for individuals and community as basis of strong communities and just relationships.

The fundamental belief is that a

•

•

person is interdependent and connected to others in community - umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu - a person is a person through other persons. Another way is to say, “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am” (7). For example, western society philosopher Descartes said, ‘I think therefore I am’ and ATRs say ‘I relate therefore I am’ (Bujo).

These ethics and values are contained in the concept of Ubuntu - hospitality, integrity, honesty, kindness, care, compassion, generosity, care of elders and vulnerable members of society.

Celebration of life through life cycle rituals characterized by song, dance, rituals and communal participation. “Key moments in life such as birth, naming, marriage, death and funeral ceremonies may be marked with celebration. This strengthens community cohesion and serves the needs of persons concerned” (7).

Life after death - hence the practices of elaborate funeral rites - “The departed retain their human characteristics and the living dead are still part of their earthly families. They may appear to the living in dreams in waking or in divination, particularly in connection with major family events” (8). Family consists of living dead (ancestors), the living

•

and yet-to-be-born. The ancestors play a significant role in the life of the living as guardians and intermediaries that are consulted as they are in spirit world closer to God. The worldview is that of a spiritual world where God, spirits (both good and evil) and ancestors live; physical world where the living life and underworld. These worlds are in constant interaction hence there the holistic worldview of ATRs.

As noted earlier, this is not an exhaustive list nor are the principles uniform but rather it covers some of the essentials that are expressed uniquely in each group as ATRs are not monolithic.

The next section will discuss examples contemporary expressions of ATRs in health seeking behavior, research by African Religion Health Asset Research (ARHAR) and examples of inculturation of ATRs in Christianity.

Contemporary expressions of ATRs Despite historical forces that could have eliminated ATRs such as slavery, colonialization, and evangelization by outside religions, ATRs continue to survive and thrive in the lives of many Africans irrespective of their allegiance to other religions. There are many examples that can be cited but this section will be limited to health seeking behaviors and examples of inculturation in Christianity.

16

A. Health Seeking Behaviors and ATRs Two examples will be discussed namely beliefs about sickness from Zulu culture which are also found in other ATRs and the results of research done by ARHAR. According to Ncube, in Zulu culture illness is classified as follows; Ukugula (sickness) has been distinguished into two categories: umkhuhlane (ordinary ailments) and ukufa kwabantu (betwitchment) and umkhuhlane wabadala/abaphansi (related to ancestral intervention) .

This illness classification system is found in many other ATRs and influences health seeking behavior in that the patient will consult different health practitioners: a traditional healer in response to ukufa kwabantu and mkhuhlane wabadala/abaphansi and medical science (hospital, clinics) or herbalist for umkhuhlane.

The existence of these different health systems was confirmed by research done

by ARHAR in Sub-Saharan Africa. They coined the word ‘healthworld’ to refer to these different systems of health.

Healthworld is defined as “culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of interpretive patterns which govern the conceptions of health and health seeking behaviors of persons.” In their research in Lesotho they found three common healthworlds co-existing

with each other. The first of these is the traditional Sesotho healthworlds (Bongaka ba moetlo) mediated by traditional healers. The second is the Christian healthworld whose relationship with traditional health world has historically been hostile but most African Initiated churches combine traditional and Christian healthworlds. Lastly, a biomedical healthworld brought by colonialists and missionaries and found in government hospitals and care centres.

According to Sesotho culture illness is believed to be a violation of life principle referred to as bophelo . The principle of life bophelo is understood as relational not abstract. Healthy relationships constitute the basis of life and wellbeing.

Stuart Bate, concurs and states that illness and healing in African traditional culture “operates around the root metaphor of restoring life”. Restoring life is a human process which includes physical health and inter-relational harmony.

Consequently, illness represents “a disruption of harmony among all these dimensions of health and is seen as a calamity that strikes not only the individual, but also the social fabric of the family and community”. The role of the traditional healer therefore is to identify the source of illness and recommend appropriate remedies that will restore life and harmonious relationship.

B. ATRs and Christianity - inculturation As mentioned in the introduction, ATRs persist and are not passive but rather are

17

transformed and transform the world as well so the impact is two way. In Christianity for example, African Traditional Churches also known as African Initiated Churches broke away from missionary founded churches in order to integrate ATRs and Christianity.

In these churches there is mutual critique and acceptance between these traditions. ATR world views are adopted within Christian framework where for example water is used to purify the body of illness and is sprinkled in houses for protection from evil forces. In mainline churches, the focus is transforming theologies and liturgies to include elements of ATRs that are in continuity with Christian beliefs. This is an area of conflict and excitement among Christians in search of identity where they can be truly African and Christian at the same time.

Conclusion African Traditional Religions/Cultures are a rich heritage that needs to be critically engaged with so that the life giving aspects can be integrated in all aspects of life and to the search for social and political systems as well as religious practices that can contribute to the flourishing of life, eradication of poverty, corruption and creation of political, economic and social systems that serve the common good and uplift the lives of the people of Africa.

Should we be singing Shlomo Carlebach’s melodies in the age of #metoo Professor Simonne Horwitz, University of Saskatchewan * Almost every Jew knows Shlomo Carlebach’s melodies. They are ubiquitous in our services and have formed part of the cultural fabric of Jewish communities around the world: Hassidic, Orthodox, Conservative, Progressive and Reconstructionist. Even if we can’t identify them as “Carlebach tunes” we recognise them and sing along to their simple and infectious melodies. There is no doubt that Carlebach was charismatic and presented himself as immensely spiritual, his music has touched thousands and thousands of Jews, allowing people to relate to Judaism in different ways. We all know and have sung his music which gives us all an investment in this debate. I think this is precisely the reason that Carlebach has become such a flash point in the Jewish Community. There are other flawed and fallen rabbi’s in Jewish communities around the world, but few have galvanised the kind of attention and discussions Carlebach has. The debate that has been started is about more than just Carlebach, it is about our *

approach, as a Jewish community, to sexual abuse. This is why this debate is so important and so powerful.

It is not my aim to evaluate, or discuss, the nature of his transgressions, for me, and in the context of this debate, sexual abuse is sexual abuse, we should not be creating a scale by which we evaluate the ‘severity of abuse’. Sexual assault is wrong and causes trauma no matter its nature. None the less, it is worth noting that some of his victims were minors, 14 years old. Nor will I in anyway interrogate the validity of the women’s stories – I accept what they have said and the pain that they were caused. My focus is squarely on the debate about Carlebach’s legacy and how he is remembered and how (if at all) the Jewish community should react to the allegations against him.

Rumors of Carlebach’s abuse and misconduct date back to the 1960s and circulated in Jewish circles – especially in the US – for decades. There seems to have been two peaks in the accusations

Professor Horwitz is a born South African and a long-lasting congregant of Beit Emanuel who lives and teaches in Canada. That talk was given due to questions and concern raised around this matter. The talk was not only informative but helped our communal institutions to understand better the scope and complexity of the matter.

Professor Horwitz would like to express special thanks to Jessica Sherman for the expert editing and for fruitful discussions.

18

coming to the fore. In the days after his death, in 1994, a number of women came forward to report the abuse they suffered at Carlebach’s hands. At this point, just as during his life, the women’s voices were drowned out by the heliography that was rapidly being produced around the man by the public and his Gabbiem (Helpers) who were said to have known about his abuse and to have actively worked to suppress those stories. He was popular during his life but after his death, he was almost deified. He was hailed as the person who brought love and spirituality back to Judaism.

The allegations against him came to a head again in an article that appeared in Lilith in 1998. Lilith is a publication with the by line “Jewish, Independent and Frankly Feminist”. It is named after Lilith, who in Jewish folklore was Adam’s first wife, who was created from the same dust as he was and is often depicted as a dangerous sexual demon.

She was said to have left Adam because she did not want to submit to him. In the article a number of women describe in detail what Carlebach had done to them and the trauma it caused. After an initial furor, the story was once again reduced to simmering rumors. But, the truth has a way of coming back and coming out. In the context of the #metoo movement and the growing accusations of abuse by prominent men, the Carlebach debate was thrust back into the public domain.

19

This time the world has changed, and it has become harder for the Carlebach supporters and image makers to dismiss the accusations and sweep them under the carpet. These women need to be heard and the Jewish community has to hear and respond – the question facing many Jewish communities around the world is how.

Why if allegations against him were so well known, even before his death, were they able to be ignored or squashed?

I think there are two main reasons for this: - His status as a unique and charismatic spiritual leader - His public support of women’s rights Carlebach became a cult-hero in some ways, his music and stories brought connection and love, his moral messages were appealing and easy to relate to, he was charismatic and well respected as a rabbi and teacher. Just like Bill Cosby, he had a persona that seemed an anathema to someone who would sexually abuse women. Both men had a status that was culturally significant, both stood for things that were greater than themselves, and used that status to gain access to and violate the very people who trusted, respected and looked up to them. Both men got away with it because people were not prepared to believe that they were capable of such abuse. In Carlebach’s

case, people were blinded by his celebratory status and the active work his assistants did to maintain his ‘impeccable’ image. But what makes him different to the numerous other famous men who have been named in the #metoo movement is that he was a spiritual and religious leader. I think this is significant because religious leaders should be held to a higher stranded and because the spiritual and religious space should be a safe space for those who seek support, guidance and community. Carlebach abused his power as a rabbi, a man of stature and his superstar status to take advantage of women who came to him to learn or to seek help. His status also gave him access to girls as young as 14, who he was in contact with when he attended numerous Jewish Summer Camps to perform and teach. His status often meant that the women and girls he approached may have felt privileged to have his attention. After the abuse his status made it hard for the women to come forward fearing that they would not be believed or because they felt betrayed, embarrassed and guilty, thinking they might have been to blame in some way because it might be difficult to believe that a man such as Carlebach could do that to them. Here, as in many cases of abuse, the girls and women’s confidence and self-worth is taken away by the abuser.

But there is another side to the man: He also fought for women’s rights.

20

Carlebach was the only Orthodox Rabbi of his time to fight publicly and openly for the rights of women. In 1989 when “Women of the Wall” first began their decades long struggle for woman’s rights to read from the Torah, aloud, at the Kotel, there was only one orthodox male rabbi present – Shlomo Carlebach.

In his own shul he encouraged women to sing aloud and often removed the Mehitza (veil) allowing men and women to sit together. He also encouraged women to study and teach Jewish texts and he was one of the first rabbi’s to offer private ordination to women.

So, here is the paradox – that a man who did so much for Jewish women also did such harm to some of them. How do we – or can we weigh this legacy?

Especially, when the ‘good’ was one of the tools used to cover-up and deny the abuse, because people could not believe that someone who they publicly supported could do something like this.

At the same time he had people around him who not only knew what was going on but who actively sought to suppress/cover-up his behaviour in order to preserve his image as ‘the holyman’. So when people ask, “Why did the women not come forward sooner?” the answer is that they did, or tried to, but they were not believed or actively shut down. To this day women who come forward with accusations against Carlebach are threatened and harassed.

And so, the narrative which these victims hear over and over again, was

that of high praise for the very man that had abused them.

In the era of #metoo we have all been challenged to stand up together and to recognise just how widespread sexual abuse is in our communities. We are asked to stop ignoring (or worse denying) women the right to not only speak out, but to seek justice and to feel that they are supported by those around them. What can we, as a Jewish spiritual community, do to support these women? What can we do to send a message that as a community we do not, and will never, condone sexual abuse?

Should we continue to sing Carlebach melodies in our prayer services and/or community events?

I will begin with the arguments that have been made for keeping on singing his melodies. There is an argument that we should separate the man from the music. Some have argued that despite his sins, the world should not be denied the music for which he might have been a conduit. They suggest that he is a conduit of things greater than himself – in his melodies there is intense Jewish history and liturgy. This argument suggests that it is possible to take the music out of context and make it our own. However, these arguments all tend to over exaggerate the musical value of his melodies. People who know far more than me about music, suggest that there is nothing unique or excellent 21

about these melodies. Rather they are ‘ditties’ that while highly contagious can easily be replaced. In fact there is a facebook group to help communities find alternative melodies. The page “anything but Carlebach” has over 1500 members who post messages with “no discourse – just music”.

Can we separate the man from the legacy, the art from the artist?

His daughter Neshama believes we can.

In January of this year, after a long silence and no response to the allegations she published a blog post entitled “My sisters, I hear you,” both on her website and in the Times of Israel.

In the post Neshama expressed solidarity with victims of sexual assault, pledging to “walk through this narrowbridge world” with them and disclosing that she too was sexually assaulted at age 9 by one of her father’s associates, whom she described as a trusted friend and a rabbi. At the same time she stresses that there is far more to Shlomo Carlebach than his alleged misdeeds. “I accept the fullness of who my father was, flaws and all. I am angry with him.

And I refuse to see his faults as the totality of who he was”. Perhaps there is: this is a man who brought holiness to the world in unique ways and united people. At the same time he used his status as a ‘great man’ to have access to women. Because of this and because these tunes are not just songs we can choose to listen to at will, but are rather part of a communal religious gathering,

separating the man and his deeds from his music is not possible. When a man such as Carlebach uses his status from that art, to both to commit and conceal his behaviour then if we share the art, we share one of the weapons he has used to commit the abuse.

Another central point in the debate has been discussions about the ethics of accusing someone who is dead and cannot speak for themselves, especially that the allegations were never proven in court.

Many case of abuse have only come to the fore after the person is dead and the women feel able to come forward, when they might have less to lose or when the gatekeepers might let down their guard.

Some people say that the accusations are simply Lashon Hara – speaking evil of someone, in this case someone who is dead. When I was researching this talk I came across a fascinating exception – if lashon hara has a purpose – more specifically a purpose in the provision of community knowledge that might prevent harm, then it is permitted to speak lashon hara. Surely preventing further abuse and protecting women in our communities is such a case.

Another argument that is often pointed out is that Jewish tradition has flawed leaders – Moses, David – whom we appreciate for their greatness and forgive for their human failings. Others stress that we are all flawed and we need to focus on improving ourselves not judging others harshly. In this 22

argument we are asked to separate the different aspects of the man, the good he did from his sins.

Some articles claim that some of the women themselves are not asking for Carlebach’s melodies to be banished – they just want to be heard and recognised.

Of course the question is how?

Honoring the women by not singing Carlebach’s melodies Some of us say that by continuing to sing his melodies, it shows that we are denying the women their voices and agency while celebrating their abuser. I have no doubt that for victims of his abuse, hearing the tunes and hearing the man glorified, is a re-traumatisation and must be extremely painful. It is not just his direct victims that suffer – although they are central to the question. There is a communal trauma when an important cultural figure is accused of such crimes. Others who have been abused in other contexts, within religious settings, are also affected when they see an abuser held up as a hero and his music played and used in prayer. This is where the Carlebach case varies from that of Cosby, Weinstein, Kevin Spacy or the numerous other men in positions of power who stand accused of sexual misconduct. Carlebach’s melodies are used in prayer, the melodies link the congregation to G-d, guide the prayer

and shape our spiritual experiences.

One can choose to watch a movie starring an actor or produced by someone accused of abuse, but this is very different to a shul service which is a public, communal event that relies on a collective spiritual experience. If we sing the songs they send the message that within the synagogue, the abuser is safe but the abused is not. Banning the songs and the music acknowledges that in the past we have tended to sweep the rumors under the rug, so to speak, and show little love and care for victims.

This act shows in a very real way that WE DO CARE and that the community is not going to pretend that nothing happened. It also sends a message to the broader community that abusers will have to pay in one way or another for their crimes. Neither fame nor death is an escape for sexual misconduct. This is powerful because there are so many victims whose stories are kept hidden by coercion and fear and who need our support and actions.

What can we as a community do?

I believe we should not be singing the songs, but simply removing them quietly from our repertoire, takes away the very important opportunity we have in front of us. To me the most important part of this debate and discussion is precisely this debate and discussion and the public acknowledgement of the victims and their suffering. This debate and discussion is rooted in the Carlebach case but it opens a broader discussion 23

about sexual abuse in our communities.

We think especially about abusers who are in places of power in our communities. The ongoing complicity of the community in silencing the voices of the victims and constantly celebrating and reinforcing the status of the abuser, should end. We need to publicly acknowledge what Carlebach has done and put aside the music and the ‘image’ that has been created of him.

Ideally, allegations such as this should come to the fore when the abuser is still alive and can face formal and communal justice but this is often not possible. As in the Carlebach’s case there was a silence and even active attempt to protect the male abuser, while the women suffered in silence. His living presence loomed large, but in death his almost deification made speaking out even harder. By coming forward hopefully it will help others who have kept their trauma secret, terrified of what their families or communities might say or do to them. The more stories are made public the more people come forward the more victims feel safe to come forward and expose their abusers.

We need to discuss people who have ‘Power’ – film directors, celebraties, politicians, managers, teachers and of course the clergy. When the Catholic Church started to reveal sexual misconduct by their priests, many Jews were thankful it wasn’t Rabbis in the spotlight. We know now that it was a

matter of time before the spotlight moved. A charismatic, revered rabbi such as Carlebach, had a tremendous impact on his followers, and is now well known as someone who took advantage of his power in order to have sexual contact with his congregants. We need to discuss this and also take communal responsibility. As a community it is up to us to protect our members and help our leaders. These allegations spanned the decades and continents and it now appears they were well known to many meanings that the Jewish community failed these women. We need to think about what could have been done on behalf of the women who have been hurt? What can be done today?

We need to own up to our failings, not only in this case but for all the times we have turned a blind eye, been blinded by image or doubting of a victim – we need to make gestures to these women and all victims of sexual abuse that we hear them, and we will take action. This is about a broader issue; the Jewish community needs to signal that we do not sanction this behaviour; infraction of this kind will not be tolerated. If we are to do this successfully we cannot, as some would have us do, separate the man from his art any more than we can separate him from his abusive legacy.

24

Some communities have argued for a moratorium or banning of Carlebach’s melodies. Others want to separate the man from the melodies. One California shul has said “The artist and the man and the legend have to die – perhaps the music can live on but not through him, not through someone who hurt so many people - he does not deserve our praise”. Ok but then why still sing his songs?

At the same time we must remember that it is not all about him – it’s about the women and young girls he hurt. The victims deserve to have their stories told, to have their experiences validated.

In the words of Neshama “Yes, the discomfort is painful. Deeply painful. But we are called to lean into it. We must, if we are to transform the world”.

And finally, we read in the Al Chet on Yom Kippur: Al chet shechatanu l’fanecha B’chachash uvchazav V’al chet shechatanu l’fanecha b’kalut rosh The ways we have wronged you through lies and deceit; And harm we have caused in your world by making light of serious matters.

Let us not make light of this serious matter which faces us.

Spiritual Journey and Standing up to values Rabbi Sa’ar Shaked * I’ve being asked to share with you some milestones in my personal spiritual journey, explaining how it shaped who I am, and to reflect on the points along the way when I became aware that a choice based on values had been made.

I’ve also been asked how a community should or can live up to its values.

I’d like to approach the question of values before sharing my story, because there is more than one way of understanding what a life based on values may mean. While values are supposed to be an inner compass, ensuring that one is aligned with and attuned to the simple rules of the universe, they are sadly often confused with rigid ideologies, which force the individual to accept external criteria and judgements. In this case, an inner organic support structure changes into an oppressive limitation on one’s growth.

It is hard to differentiate between the two states of being, because our perceptions are so readily shaped by our environment. We would like to believe that there is an unshakable inner core which is always available for us, letting us know what the wishes of our authentic, true self are. However, the more common situation is that there are sadly many voices in our heads, reflecting our parents, our teachers, the *

common opinions in our society, fear of judgment, the desire to “do the right thing”, and so on. The choices that we finally make across our lifespan are a random average of all of the above and the inner calling, to the extent that we have manged to identify it from among all the other competing voices and then tried to actualize it.

In 1784, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his famous essay "Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?". He answers the question in the first sentence of the essay: "Enlightenment is one’s emergence from self-incurred immaturity". He argues that the immaturity is self-inflicted not from a lack of understanding, but from a lack of courage to use one's reason, intellect, and wisdom without the guidance of another. He exclaims therefore that the motto of Enlightenment is Sapere aude! or “Dare to think!”

One century later, another great German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, developed the idea that wisdom or reason is not enough. One should strive to become “free in spirit” through what he called “Bildung” or selfeducation. However, this self-education is not based on the voice of reason. On contrary, the meaning of this project of liberating-the-self is to live in

An address given last March at a leadership seminar of a Lockstep LTD. (http://lockstep.co.za/)

25

accordance with one’s deep, truest and most authentic self. He called for allegiance to nothing other than one’s profoundest authenticity. That would ensure that the book of one’s life was written only by the particular individual, without external influences. Only a truly liberated spirit can claim ownership of itself.

When I was a teenager, I was totally persuaded by this philosophy. Indeed, those streams of thought have advanced a long way from their severe German origin. In fact, they are so common today that we should ask where their boundaries lie. However, I was born in 1975 and grew up in a very secular society. Thus, the influence of such 60s and 70s notions were widely present in the environment of my upbringing.

Nevertheless, I was fascinated by the German origins of these philosophies of emancipation. Actually, I was attracted to everything German. I tried to learn the language, listened to classical music, watched movies and read every book I could lay my hands on.

In my immediate context, this thinking looked very obscure and seemed to some degree indicative of emotional disturbance. Indeed, I experienced existential angst, as many people do in their teenage years. However, in my singular case, being a descendent of Ashkenazi Jews, this anxiety took the shape of a strong attraction to the culture which was responsible for the genocide perpetrated against my people a generation before I was born.

26

Looking back on those days in the late 80s and early 90s, I’m very happy to have gone through that phase in my life.

It shaped who I am as an intellectual. It gave me an advantage in my reading and understanding of culture which has served me well right up to today.

Beyond those gains, it helped me to understand what came to be the base of my value system: everything which is inspiring and emancipating in the traditions of the West. This perception ranges from the brave resistance of the Greek cities to the invasion of the Persian empire during the 5th century BCE (which some of you may recognise from the movie 300) to the trial and death of Socrates for his uncompromising love of truth. From here one moves to the Renaissance, which called human beings to awaken to beauty and art, then to the Age of Revolutions and social struggles in Europe, and most recently to the brave and desperate attempts to maintain human dignity and creativity under the oppressive regimes of the 20th century.

Like many of my generation, I was totally captivated by the collapse of the Soviet empire from 1989 to 1990. I felt – as did many others at the time – that a major shift had happened in human history. There was a feeling that the human spirit had triumphed over tyranny and that now everything was possible. The American Philosopher, Francis Fukuyama, wrote in his 1989 essay "The End of History?" that the advent of Western liberal democracy might signal the end-point of humanity's

sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.

The symbolic representation of this view was a concert held in Berlin on Christmas Eve in 1989. Leonard Bernstein conducted Beethoven’s 9th symphony, with musicians and singers from both the East and the West. That concert was broadcast to more than 20 countries and was watched by an estimated 100 million people. This was emblematic of the new global order to come. As a token of the historical significance of the event, Bernstein changed one word in the poem which is sung during the fourth movement, Friedrich Schiller’s “Ode to Joy”. Instead of “joy” (Freude), the choir sang “liberty” (Freiheit). I remember being thrilled by this experience. I yearned for such a revolutionary moment to occur in my homeland as well, so that the end of the conflict which had troubled my county for so long might come into sight.

It was during that period, by the way, that I first learned about the situation in South Africa, long before I even dreamt that a day would come when I would be serving here as a rabbi. I remember the moment clearly. It was also related to music, this time a performance of the contemporary “Sing our own song” by the British band UB40. The values of emancipation and liberation embodied in musical form were woven into a single tapestry in my young mind, combining past, present and future.

As with most Israelis, my teenage years ended abruptly when I was drafted into 27

the IDF in 1993. However, something had changed in my society. A year earlier, Itzhak Rabin (the leader of the Labour Party) had defeated the National Party candidate and was elected prime minister. There was a real feeling that lasting peace was finally on the horizon.

The 90s were a time of optimism. I remember myself as a solider, reading the newspaper at night at my platoon base. I discovered that the Oslo Accords had been signed by Mr Rabin and Mr Arafat, and that in faraway South Africa a new dispensation had been being introduced. We could only hope that the positive mood would continue. It was clear to me that many of my people were not happy with the political direction taken by Mr. Rabin. Like numerous others, I was concerned about the incitement and hate speech directed against him. Yet, like the majority of Israelis, I was totally shocked on the evening of November 4th, 1995, when Itzhak Rabin was assassinated by a religious right-wing activist, driven by hate and supported by the considered position of certain rabbis, who had declared the prime minister an enemy to be eliminated. I simply could not believe that my Jewish faith had been so shamefully abused as to serve as an expedient justification for a political assassination. For me this represented what happens when a value system exists, yet does not honour its fundamentally informing tenets.

As I told you earlier, I grew up in a very secular environment. Yet there was

always a place in my heart for ancient Jewish traditions. I used to go occasionally to the synagogue with my grandfather. More generally, it is almost impossible to avoid being heavily influenced by the dramatic events of Jewish history if one grows up in Israel.

The more I became involved in exploring Jewish teachings, the more I came to understand that there are many interpretations of this faith, as well as many possibilities for practising it. I’ve learned that Judaism calls on you to choose your rabbi and to choose the version of Jewish teaching that you feel committed to following. I’ve learnt that Judaism is a religion of life which sanctifies life, although obviously, as in any other civilization, it has its darker aspects, shaped by our long history of segregation and persecution.

One teaching I clearly remember, which closely followed the Rabin assassination in those early days, was foregrounded by the Bereaved Parents’ Circle (today known as “The Parents’ Circle Families’ Forum”), an organization of Israeli and Palestinian parents who had lost their children in consequence of the conflict.

The Parents’ Circle had just been established at that point. In one of their first publications, they collected a compilation of religious texts supporting peace and democracy in an attempt to counter exactly the same idea that I was trying to resist: the notion that Judaism is driven by dark forces which sanctify war and possession of the land of Israel over peace and life. In that publication I 28

found a teaching by none other than the founding father of religious Zionism, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, stating the following: “The awe of Heaven should not push aside natural human morality, for if that were the case, it would no longer be pure awe of Heaven. The real sign of pure awe of Heaven is that natural morality which, rooted in one’s simple nature, arises and ascends through this medium to higher levels than it could otherwise have achieved. However, if it should happen that one’s awe of Heaven were such that, without it, life would be more conducive to goodness and healthier for the individual and society, if it should happen that through its influence life would have less merit – that is unworthy awe of Heaven.”

These words were a true revelation for me. I decided to devote myself to understating what the appropriate awe of heaven is, how one may find it and how one should act in accordance with it. As I have already said, the period was the mid-90s. I had just completed my army service and I did what most young Israelis do straight after the army – I went to India to find myself.

To cut short a long story, there was a moment when I was doing a 10-day silent meditation course in the Indian Himalayas that I felt an urgent call to return to Israel in order to be trained as a rabbi. I was only 22 at the time. This intuition had no secure basis. It seemed totally inexplicable to all those who knew me as an intellectual living a

bohemian lifestyle. It was also very puzzling to my parents and family.

However, I couldn’t resist this call, nor did I have the desire to do so. I knew that I had to respond with my actions, with the actual choices I was going to make in my life. To be honest, I had no clue where to start. Nonetheless, once the intention was out there in the universe, events took their course and one thing led to another until my ordination in 2004 – and until today.

During this journey – and it is already 20 years since the events I’ve described – I’ve learned that there is no substitute for opening the human heart. “The heart is the mother of the world,” say the Buddhist master sages. Through all the incredible variety of human traditions, the path of the heart is what is really inspiring. In Christianity it is the wounded heart of Jesus, giving himself lovingly for all human beings, as well as the motherly heart of Mary, standing for the very essence of motherhood. There are also many other examples of a pure and open heart, from St. Francis of Assisi to the present Pope Francis. In Islam the path of the heart suggests the long and respected tradition of the Sufi masters, with some of whom I was privileged to work in the Middle East. I was, and still am, humbled by the magnitude of the spirit and the scope of spiritual practice.

I have felt, and I still feel, that there is much more for me to learn from them.

In Hinduism, we can look at the devoted, loving heart of Hanuman who cares so much for Ramah and Sitah, defending them without fear. Buddhist teaching is 29

all aimed at creating awareness and awakening the consciousness of an open heart. Finally, here in South Africa, the spiritualty of this country cannot be understood without the term “ubuntu”, which literally means “humanity". It is frequently used to describe the notion of “humanity towards others", the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects us all. All these are inspiring images and concepts from our overarching heritage, helping us to find a common denominator in our journey toward shared values and a better tomorrow.

We live in times of great distress and confusion; in Jewish mystical language, this is called the world of absence and disguise. We say that the Divine spark is obscured by many layers of shells and veils. Today it seems harder than ever to tell right from wrong, good from evil.

Our task as God’s workers in this as-yetunredeemed-world is to release the Divine from its disguise, to save those precious constituents which are made in God’s image from being taken for granted, from becoming a commodity, from becoming dispensable.

It doesn’t matter which faith one practises; it is always worth asking: Does the path I’m following have a heart?

Does it encourage me to use my own mind? Does it encourage me to live as my truest self? Is the awe of God achieved through it such that human dignity is confirmed by it or denied by it?

Dear friends, God has no other workers than us. Who we are and what we do is

the answer we give to God, the answer of our lives. When we gather together, it is only natural that people will have different opinions about our guiding vision and the modes of its operation, where we should direct ourselves and how we should arrive there. This is how we are tested as communities. These concerns are relevant for the family circle, for the work-place, schools and houses of worship, the body corporate of a residential property, the neighbourhood, the city, the province and the entire nation. We are all connected.

I’d like to conclude with a prayer that we recite in the morning, as we thank God for giving us his holy Torah. It teaches us the good path, one which is in harmony with proper values and an open heart. In this prayer, we thank God for the capacity to learn and to make progress each day; thus, we say:

30

“We seekers of God, how do we find You? In good deeds and in the study of Torah.

And your search for us?

You find us In bending our knee, in the rigour of study, In the honesty of our commerce, through a good heart, through decency, In respect, true fellowship, companionship and love, Through truth and peace, In the No that is really a No and the Yes that is really a Yes. .‫ המלמד תורה לעמו ישראל‬,'‫ברוך אתה ה‬ Blessed are you, Eternal one, who teaches Torah to his people Israel.

Some memories from the ending year‌

31

32

“The Old shall dream dreams and the Youth shall see visions” (Joel 2:17) In this section of our publication we’d like to share with you extracts out of some sermons which were delivered by our members. The first two were given by adult members and the others by Bar and Bat Mitzva kids. Enjoy your reading!

Allistair Balutto / Parashat Shemini My Torah portion is Shemini from the book of Vayikra (the book of Leviticus).

Judaism is a field of tensions between exile and redemption or universalism and particularism, priests and prophets, cyclical and linear time, the sacred and profane and so on. However, the largest tension is that between order and chaos that underscores directly and indirectly all other tensions and life as a whole.

Parashat Shemini can be divided into two sections. The first tells of the initiation of sacrifice in the Mishkan by Aaron and his sons. The second is the law of Kashrut and lists the types of animals that are permitted and forbidden for us to eat.

Threaded through these two seemingly unrelated sections and the connection between them is the principle of Lehavdil.

The heart of Shemini states that our duty in life, is to distinguish between categories and properties in life: 33

Lehavdil! To make a distinction between right and wrong, clean and unclean, pure and impure—between the holy and the mundane with the sole purpose of elevating the ordinary into the realms of the holy.

Whilst there are so many ways in which the importance of Lehavdil is explained in Parashat Shemini, I would like to use perhaps the most famous story in Shemini; the death of Aaron’s sons. To do so, let me first set the scene.

It is Shemini the 8th Day, the construction of the Mishkan is completed. All that is needed is to invest Aaron and his sons as priests through the process of ritual sacrifice.

Aaron offers the very first sacrifices upon the altar, and God responds by sending forth a fire that consumes the offering.

The sacrificial relationship between the people, the priest and God is consummated.

However, celebration turns to tragedy as Aaron’s two sons Avinu and Nadav die in the blink of an eye, cut down with fire from God in the prime of life, as they ascended the altar in their first act of priesthood. Aaron, the great orator and Moses’s own mouthpiece, falls uncharacteristically silent.

He is consumed by grief after all what words can give voice to such terrible fortune?

His silence is total, he battles unfathomable pain as his entire universe has suddenly and dramatically collapsed.

You can feel his pain through the text and the trope.

Perhaps amongst the many explanations given by the sages as to what Nadav and Avihu’s sin actually was, the simplest answer, given by the Torah itself is that they acted on their own initiative. They did what they had not been commanded.

They acted spontaneously, perhaps out of sheer enthusiasm in the mood of the moment, offering “unauthorized fire”.

Evidently it is dangerous to act spontaneously in matters of the spirit.

Why then was spontaneity wrong for Nadav and Avihu yet right for Moses who at several times acted spontaneously.

Who can forget that Moses struck the rock in anger to draw water or the fact that he smashed the tablets? The answer is that Nadav and Avihu were Levite Priests and Moses was a Prophet. These are two different forms of religious leadership. They involve different tasks, different sensibilities, and indeed

34

different approaches to time itself.

Lehavdil!

Thus, the priest represents the principle of structure in Jewish life, while the prophet represents spontaneity. Nadav and Avihu did not distinguish between these two roles and the consequence of their action was death.

We have inherited and integrated the traditions of both the Priest and the Prophet in our current forms of worship.

This is best reflected in the Amidah prayers where we recite prayers in a structured way but have a moment of silent prayer at the end to appeal to God spontaneously and in our own words.

For without structure, Judaism would have no continuity, but without spontaneity it would have no fresh life.

The challenge is to maintain the balance without confusing the place of each.

Lehavdil!

Shemini follows the deaths of Nadav and Avihu with the laws of kashrut. This is no coincidence. Shemini equates kashrut with kedusha; holiness. One can achieve holiness through spiritual pursuits, through cleaving to God, and one can attain holiness through elevating of our physical beings. And for many, the latter approach is the better one.

For most, holiness is best achieved in our day-to-day activities, where God's impact is felt in the most natural of ways, almost subconsciously.

The challenge of embracing the spiritual while satisfying the physical is a reflection of the delicate tightrope we are expected to walk throughout our lives-finding a harmonious balance between body and soul.

In line with the season we are in. We celebrated Pesach exactly one week ago but immediately afterwards started the counting of the Omer and focusing on the hard work of introspection and character refinement.

The juxtaposition of these two themes tells us much about our mission in life.

We are not to live an ascetic life, denying basic human needs to enable the soul to transcend the body. Nor are we to indulge the body in its every physical whim. Instead, we are taught to achieve a singular marriage of body and soul that has the power to forge a wholesome relationship with our Divine Source.

The timing between celebrating our freedom and immediately afterwards working on refining our character teaches us to never take our blessings for granted. To tell us that the religious high must be drawn into our personal behaviors, that a Divine experience is not complete and will not hold unless it refines our attitudes and simply makes us better, more giving, more loving human beings.

Unity in our life as Shemini teaches comes through the ability to distinguish to create Havdala, separation, between the pure and the impure, between what is permitted and what is not.

We are quick to embrace that which is sanctified, yet we are not as ready to abstain from that which is profane. To make the division between right and wrong, pure and impure, is indeed one of the greatest challenges in life.

In each and every generation, we have been challenged with the command to "be holy." Aaron and his sons understood that challenge in their own way; the rabbis built the entire system of kashrut based on the understanding of what "holy" meant to them; and we, in our time, continue to try and understand what "being holy" means to us.

35

Freedom is not complete until we integrate the experience into our personal lives. Pesach gave us the Divine gift of freedom, taking us out of all our constraints and fears - Mitzrayim – the narrow spaces in our lives. That is step one. But that alone does not mean that we are free from within. True freedom is possible only when we free ourselves from our own emotional subjectivity and trappings, through the process of introspection and character growth in the 49 days of the Omer. Each day we count, we reflect, refine and illuminate another aspect of our emotional personality.

Then and only then do we become ready to absorb the 50th day and experience an even greater transcendent dimension, the Sinai experience when we receive the power to fuse matter and spirit.

Robert E. Bocking / Parashat Shoftim

“ JUSTICE, JUSTICE, SHALL YOU PURSUE” These words spoken by Moses, have reverberated throughout history, they reverberate within the soul of every Jew. JUSTICE, JUSTICE – SHALL YOU PURSUE The English word Justice conjures the imagination with images of Judges behind benches, of gavels of robes and wigs. No doubt this is the practical application when it comes to Parashah Shoftim – The Hebrew word ‫ש ְֹׁפ ִ֣טים‬ literally means judges, the parashah gives commandments for judges on how to behave and conduct themselves.

What interests me is the repetition ‫ֶצ ֶֶ֥דק‬ ‫ – ֶצֶ֖דֶ ק‬JUSTICE, JUSTICE. One might think that this is just poetic licence, do we possibly consider that Moses stuttered – He was known to be a poor speaker?

No I think not, to understand it we need to look at the word JUSTICE – Not in English but in Hebrew – ‫צֶ֖דֶ ק‬. ֶ In Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֶֶ֖דק‬means justice, ‫ ֶ ֶ֖צ ֶדק‬is also the root for the Hebrew word for Charity ‫ – צְ דָ קָ ה‬Thus meaning doing charity is not feeling sorry for people but rather doing what is just, social justice – This word gives is the answer to the very first question posed by Man to God – “Am I my brothers keeper?” This question was asked by Kane after murdering his brother Abel. If ‫ צְ דָ קָ ה‬is charity this 36

teaches us yes it is JUST to give charity – It is just to look after those around you, to keep them.

In South Africa this is not easy in a world where we are so overwhelmed by Poverty we are surely we not all commanded to help everyone – JUSTICE, JUSTICE SHALL YOU PURSUE. No each one can only do what they can, each one can do as they are able and bit by bit we can repair or at least maintain the world.

Justice does not only deal with poverty and charity it deals with criminality and the punishment thereof – So did Moses intend for us to peruse those who wrong us in courts or if someone harms me am I entitled to take justice into my own hands? No the parashah teaches us to appoint judges who shall govern, fairly, equitably and with due justice.

SO what did Moses mean when he said JUSTICE, JUSTICE SHALL YOU PURSUE? well let’s look at the second meaning of the word ‫צֶ֖דֶ ק‬. ֶ This word is also the root of the word Tzadik – Literally RIGHTEOUS ONE, we learn from this that ‫ ֶצֶ֖דֶ ק‬means both JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS. In another context we may read the command ‫ֶ ֶ֥צדֶ ק ֶצֶ֖דֶ ק ת ְר ֹּ֑ ֹׁדף‬ as RIGHTEOUSNESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS Shall you pursue or rather in my opinion - RIGHTEOUS JUSTICE SHALL YOU PURSUE.

Many times we are so concerned with our sense of JUSTICE that our sense of righteousness must play second fiddle.

Shammai" – is in order to inform you of [the need for] the love of truth and the power of righteousness and faith.

When we argue we find ourselves holding to our own opinion or to that of our own camp or party as we believe that our opinion is that which pursues JUSTICE, however in doing this we abandon righteousness.

As behold, when these honorable, pious and magnanimous men, who were outstanding in their wisdom, saw that the words of the one who is in disagreement with them were better than their words and [that] their investigation is correct, they conceded to him and recanted to his opinion. All the more so, when other people see that the truth is leaning towards the one with which they have a conflict, should [such a one] lean towards the truth and not stiffen his neck. And this is the [meaning of the] verse (Deuteronomy 16:20), "Justice, justice shall you pursue."

The Rambam gave the following example in his introduction to the Mishnah using the rift between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel for an example: "The House of Shammai said like this and the House of Hillel said like this and that, and the House of Hillel recanted to instruct like the words of the House of

Adam Bertoldi / Parashat Bereshit

It’s a tradition for the bar mitzvah boy to share some thoughts on his portion. My portion is Bereishit, the first Parsha of the whole Torah. Today I read the creation story which ends with the creation of human beings and leads into Shabbat. I also read the Maftir which is at the end of Bereishit. As you might have noticed, it doesn’t end on a high note like the creation of man and Shabbat. But rather Bereishit ends by God looking at the world ten generations after he has created it and seeing that the people have become corrupt and evil and God intends on destroying them. Thus the story of Noah 37

begins. We can see that the meaning of being human is very important to the opening of the book of Bereishit.

How is it that after such an amazing creation of human beings with all their potential for intelligence and a spiritual connection with God and morality, they have begun to turn away from what God intended them to be so quickly?

To answer this question, I would like to turn to the sixth day of creation and the creation of the human being, or ‘Adam’.

When God creates the humans in Chapter 1, he uses words to create them and He says may the Adam be in our

image and in our likeness, bezalmeinu, kidmuteinu. This was God’s vision for what he wanted humans to be like. One of my questions though, is what does it mean for the human being to be in God’s image and God’s form, since we usually hear that God is everywhere and does not look like anything and has no solid form? To answer this, we start with Rashi, our commentator from the 11th century. Rashi said that the human being was physically similar to God and also intellectually. But then we could say, God has no form, so what does this mean? Maybe the answer is that we’ve been taught the wrong way as to what God is. It’s not that God has no form, but that God has endless forms, God can be a mountain, water, emotions, He can be the desert. So now we have an answer to our question of what does it mean to be created in the image of God: God can be everything and so too the potential for humans is infinite. It seems that God wanted humans to be as wide and vast and different as He is himself.

Also, in Chapter 1, we are told that God created Adam in his image and created male and female. There are many ways to interpret this but the way I read it is that Adam was not alone for even a nano-second. God introduced another person immediately which tells us that Adam was not meant to be alone and had to learn how to be in relationship, he had to learn about morals and ethics and how to relate to the other.

This incredible potential of the human is reflected in Chapter 2 of Creation where 38

we are given a second account of how the Adam was created. In this instance, Adam was created by God gathering dust from all the parts of the world, moistening the earth to form clay and forming the clay into the shape of a human. Then God breathed the breath of life into the Adam’s nostrils and he became a living being. Rashi explains that God formed Adam just like a potter would form his vessel with absolute control of the outcome, until he puts it in the kiln. At this stage when the Adam was all clay but not breath, he could be controlled at God’s will and the Rabbis in the Talmud call this clay Adam Golem which is like a robot which cannot think independently and is controlled by its master. But when God breathes in the breath of life, the Golem becomes Adam and gets the characteristics of intelligence and becomes more Godlike which is in keeping with the vision of the first account.

I’ve always been fascinated by the Golem. A Golem is a creature that does not have a brain and is controlled by its creator or Master. There are legends of Golems in Prague and Vilna where Rabbis created a Golem to protect the Jews in the area from the Pogroms which were happening at that time. Kind of like a medieval CSO. In the stories of the Golem, the Rabbis created the Golem with the intention of controlling it and protecting the Jews.

But there are stories of them losing control of the Golem and the Golem running amok and even hurting

innocents. The Golem wasn’t intelligent enough to know its own mission and so if the Rabbi wasn’t controlling it, it ran wild, without the abilities to understand and discern. It didn’t have the capacity to understand its purpose. Still, like Frankenstein, the Golem shows us that once you have created something you don’t have full control over what it is going to do. Which is why the stories tell us that eventually the Rabbis had to kill the Golem.

But Adam was very different to a Golem.

As I explained we were created in the image of God and Rashi says this included the ability to understand and discern, lehavin, u’lehaskil. This ability to be in God’s image is bigger than being a lump of clay. It is more about the breath of life.

But the vision for Adam is to be part matter and part spirit, clay and breath.

God combines both elements of the universe, earth and heaven, telling us that we are meant to be both elements, of the physical and the spiritual world.

We are meant to live in this world, to eat, drink, play video games, but we are also meant to be good people and think for ourselves. We are also told that God created us from all the four corners of the earth, and from Jerusalem to teach us to spread and settle everywhere and also that we should be people of the world, connected to everyone. As you can see Hashem had such a lofty vision, such a strong vision for what humans can be and yet after ten generations,

39

boy had we messed up. We had become corrupt.

To come back to my first question, I’ve shown you that God had such amazing goals for the human. We were meant to be smart and emulate God, to be a balance of earth and heaven, to be connected to the whole world and Jerusalem, and to have more emotions than the other animals and to be in relationships. So what happened? Did God create a flaw in His creation?

My answer relates to what I said about the Golem. The Golem was controlled by his Master, he didn’t have his own brain and thoughts. Humans were given free choice which in Hebrew is bechirah chafshit. At the moment when earth was created on day one, there was the creation of light and darkness, this set up a pattern for what this world is all about. There’s always the choice to choose light or dark, to choose good or bad, they both exist.

This is why we had a choice whether or not to eat the fruit in the Garden of Eden. With free choice, comes the potential to do good and to do bad. And we chose to do bad and sometimes when I look around it feels we are still choosing to do bad.

In realizing how humans have free choice but often choose the bad, made me question why did God give us free choice to begin with? I mean free choice has led to so much suffering in the world. To answer this, I remembered that before God created the world, God

created Teshuvah, the chance to repent and fix the bad. So that means God knew we were going to do bad even before the world and the universe were created. But God gave us the chance to fix our bad. In other words, the bad becomes part of the good as we try to fix ourselves and the world. If we only did good, then our good would be like the actions of the golem or an angel, it would not mean as much as human good which comes out of struggle and free choice and teshuvah.

I’ve learned a big lesson from the first Adam and the beginnings of humanity.

My whole life and in preparing for my bar mitzvah I have always wanted to be a perfectionist and make sure everything is perfect. But my Parsha teaches that making mistakes is OK, in fact it’s more than OK. It’s the way God created us and it’s how we learn and grow. Because I put such pressure on myself to get everything just right, I really take the lesson of Adam to heart, now and for the rest of my life.

Reuben Fleisch / Parashat Noah

…Since the Middle Ages, it’s been customary for boys when they come of age to do a sermon, and since the twentieth century, girls do it too.

This week’s portion is Noah. This is the second portion of the Jewish year. You might all think Noah, I learned that as a kid, he built an ark, ‘the animals went in two by two’, the waters came, and he left the ark when the waters were gone.

Simple right? But the story is a lot deeper than you think.

To start off understanding about why the flood came, we have to rewind to Adam and Eve, and the Tree of Knowledge. The reason why there was a flood is because there was evil in the world. At the beginning, when God created the world, he created it in an image that was perfect and nothing was wrong. That’s why he called it very good.

40

But soon after, Adam and Eve suddenly disobeyed him by eating from the tree of knowledge. The second act of rebellion was from Adam and Eve’s children, when Kain killed Abel. We didn’t get off to a great start and we can sense how this story will end up. Ten generations later, we come to Noah’s generation. God looked out into the world and saw evil and makes a decision to have a flood and through that to destroy the world and all human flesh.

What were humans doing that we were so evil that God wanted to wipe us out?

The words used for the bad was “ra’ah” evil and “hamas”, violence. But what was this? Some of the commentaries explain that hamas, was sexual sin and idolatry. But there was an added dimension which was described as robbery, but was basically a disrespect of a person’s privacy. Let me explain

using Rashi. In explaining the robbery, Rashi says that princes and men of power went and stole away young brides and even married women. This wasn’t your average robbery, it was the deepest abuse of power and lack of respect for human beings. It robbed people of their dignity. As terrible as this was, it’s extremely disturbing that God would destroy an entire population because of these factors, but I will get back to that later in my speech.

As the story continues, we are told God will save one lucky someone and his family, a man called Noah. The question is why God chose Noah to build the Ark, to carry animals two by two or seven by seven and to secure representatives the animal kingdom and Noah’s family from the flood. This is where things get really interesting. We might want to ask why did God choose Noah? The text tells us: Noah was a Righteous man in his generation and Noah walked with God. We are told Noah was righteous, a tzaddik, in his generation. What does this mean? The Rabbis are puzzled by this statement.

It’s like saying so and so is top of the lowest maths class. Is this a compliment? In other words, if he were to go the highest class, would he still be top of the class because now there’s competition, or would he now be kind of average? Rashi asks the same question with Noah? When it says he was a tzaddik in his generation, he says if he was in Avraham’s generation would he be a tazddik or an average human? The Rabbis are divided on this, some say he 41

would have been a tzaddik in any generation and some say he would have been average because he was only a tzaddik because everyone else was rotten to the core.

Because the rabbinic jury are divided on this, we need to look at Noah’s behaviour in the story to decide for ourselves. The Midrash tells us, when Noah was planting the seeds for the trees that he was going to use for the ark. People stopped to ask why you are planting those trees, Noah said God is bringing a terrible destructive flood because everyone is so evil and I am building an ark for me and my family to save ourselves. The tradition of the Jewish prophet is to warn people when bad is going to happen. But Noah did not go out and warn his generation to repent and return from their evil ways.

Even when they asked what he was doing, even then he didn’t say outright I think you should change your ways- and they didn’t take the hint. Noah didn’t warn the people to change their ways because destruction was coming, even though the Midrash tells us that it took Noah 120 years to build the ark.

This is why the Lubavitcher Rebbe called Noah a “tzaddik in pels”. In Yiddish this is a phrase which means a righteous person in a fur coat. In other words, it’s cold and he puts on a coat to warm up instead of turning on the heater and warming up everyone. This means he was a silent, passive, selfish tzaddik.

While real tzaddiks are meant to try and save everyone, Noah kept quiet and

looked after himself. This is so different from Avraham who fought with God, when God wanted to destroy Sodom.

Avraham said if there are 40 righteous people in the city, don’t’ destroy the city. And as they negotiated it lowered to ten but they couldn’t find ten and the city of Sodom was destroyed but not without an argument. This is different to Noah, whose silence is in contrast to Avraham’s appeal.

He might be referred to as a tzaddik in pels because he was not an actual tzaddik when the story started. But perhaps it is his journey that turns him into a tzaddik. This journey involves entering and living in the ark. What happened In the ark?

Noah was told to take food into the ark for him and the animals. He was told kach lecha, take for yourself. This is strange phrasing because he was actually taking for everyone. So it says for himself because feeding everyone was for hiw own benefit and moral growth. The Midrash says that in the ark he had to become attuned to the animals and their needs. We are told that for 12 months Noah did not sleep because he was so busy feeding all the animals. He had to feed each animal exactly what they were used to eating.

In another fascinating Midrash we are told one giant attached himself to the Ark called Og and Noah undertook the responsibility of feeding him through a hole that he made in the ark. Noah had to make space for the animals and the giants. It was no longer just about him.

42

In these twelve months Noah starts to learn that it is so important to care for other beings, beyond himself. This is in contrast to the earlier, selfish Noah who builds the ark just for him. This is how he grows into a tzaddik.

As Noah is becoming a tzaddik, what is happening to God? We see God before and after the flood but not during the flood. But if we compare God before and after, something has changed. Before the flood, God was filled with anger because of the humans, and regrets His creation. God’s response is to destroy us. But after the flood, Noah brings up sacrifices and God responds by saying ‘I understand that humans are evil but I can deal with it now, I will not continue to bring suffering, pain and death on the whole of humanity because there is evil among them.’ What is this here? Has God learned a lesson? Can God change?

To answer this, let me fast forward to Jonah’s story in the Bible. In Jonah’s story, God also finds an evil city where people are being terrible to each other.

But instead of Him destroying it suddenly, he asks Jonah to help them repent. God has changed in this way.

God is showing more compassion and allowing very strongly for the possibility of Teshuvah, repentance.

So although the story of the flood tells the sad story of a generation who weren’t given the chance to change or didn’t take the opportunity to change and were destroyed, I don’t want to focus on them alone. I want to focus on Noah and God who both went through a

journey of transformation in this story.

Noah started out an average tzaddik but after going in the Ark he emerges a more caring tzaddik. God starts out very strict and even dare I say it, quite rash in His response to humanity. But God seems to develop more tolerance through the flood, perhaps because he feels sorrow when he sees his world and people destroyed. Whatever the case, by the time it comes to Jonah, He has changed.

As I stand here at my bar mitzvah making my connection with God more deep, I feel proud of God, of a Jewish God who can change and can learn. This is an extremely moving story because it shows that through destruction and death, there is always a bright side, a

rainbow if you will. You see a dove return with an olive leaf, and you say hey, it’s not over. And then the next time evil comes around, you have a chance to repent and live. This appeals to me because when it says God is Almighty and Powerful, He is…but in our tradition, God is a learner, engaging with our ancestors like Avraham through dialogue. This means that humans too can make mistakes and learn from them but you wont be judged, because everyone makes mistakes, even perhaps God. The last point I want to make is that you connect with God through dialogue and through learning and I think that is what becoming bar mitzvah means for me – it means I am joining this dialogue with God and the Jewish people. I am so glad to be doing this.

Ethan Lewis / Parashat Toldot

Parshat Toldot is half way through the book of Bereshit (or Genesis). It tells the story of the births of Yaakov (Jacob) and Eisav (Esau) – the sons of Yitzchak (Isaac) and Rivkah (Rebecca) - and it tells us how they were born, how they grew up, how they fought - and everything that happens points to the future of the Jewish people.

You might be familiar with the basic story of how these twin boys were competitive with each other, but I would like to start with a well-known Midrash about them. It says that for thirteen years, the boys were similar, and they 43

went to school and came home from school. But at thirteen, things changed, and one went to the Yeshiva, the house of study, and the other went on to the idol-worshipping temples. I can just imagine it. Usually young twins are dressed the same and act the same, but at thirteen these two broke that ritual and became their own people. But still, how did they become so different from each other? In order to understand this, we need to rewind.

If we look at their parents, we already see two very different people. When Rivkah arrived in the land of Canaan

preparing to marry Yitzchak, she saw a wise, brooding man praying in the fields.

She could see he had suffered a lot and paid respect to him by covering herself with her veil in order not to overwhelm him with her full brightness. We know Rivkah was very outgoing, popular and confident; she approached Eliezer at the well and gave him and his camels water, so they could drink and Eliezer knew at this instant she would be the right wife for Yitzchak.

brother’s ankle, holding onto him because he was hoping he would win the birth race.

We also know that when Lavan, Rivkah’s brother, asked her if she wanted to go to another land with Eliezer and marry a man she had never met, she bravely said, “I will go”. We can see that Rivkah is someone who loves life; she glows and almost overwhelms people with her brightness.

The boys grow up and they couldn’t be more different from each other. Eisav grew up to be a skilful hunter and Yaakov is described as a simple man, sitting in tents. The sitting in tents is explained in the commentaries to mean that he studied in a Yeshiva and dedicated his life to Torah. The Torah hadn’t actually been given yet so what was he actually learning? Maybe he was learning wisdom or Hebrew but either way, we can see that Eisav is a physical young man but Yaakov is spiritually mature but not very physical, he’s a softy. This is played out even more when we are told that Yitzchak loved Eisav and Rivkah loved Yaakov. Wait a minute, aren’t parents not supposed to have favourites?

It’s from these two very different people that the twins are born. While Rivkah is pregnant, we are told, “vayitrozazu habanim bikirbah” - the twins struggled within her. Rivkah is in a lot of pain and she goes to ask G-d whey she is struggling so. G-d gives her a prophecy, he says to her, “you have two children inside, and they will become two different nations, the strength will pass from the one to the other and the elder will serve the younger”.

But this prophecy already tells us these twins are going to split and disagree with each other for a large part of their life. As the story goes we are told, there was a competition within the Rivkah’s tummy and when Eisav came out, Yaakov was pulled out holding onto his 44

When they come out, the one is red and hairy all over and they call him Eisav, while the other doesn’t have a physical description, perhaps he doesn’t reveal himself, and he is Yaakov, because he was holding onto his brother’s heel which in Hebrew is Eikev.

And maybe Rivkah’s simplicity and love of life is something she saw mirrored in Yaakov who in his early years was quite simple. They (Rivkah and Yaakov) both gradually revealed themselves in due time - Rivkah covers up when she first met Yitzchak before fully revealing herself and Yaakov too reveals his full

character over time when he disguises himself later on to get Yitzchak’s blessing. So they both start out simple but become more complicated as the story develops.

At this point we can see how the twins have been set up to be different and competitive. The sad thing is they’re been set up by G-d and also by their parents. Competition is not a kind thing, because while it can encourage us to achieve, it means we are always comparing ourselves to others, and so we never get to feel good about ourselves. Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, the President of the US from 1901 to 1909 famously said: ‘comparison is the thief of joy’.

This is an important lesson for me, because I am very competitive, especially when it comes to maths and swimming. Maybe I can learn to compete with myself and be less interested in what others are achieving.

But as we will see the twins have not learned this lesson. Yaakov came out holding his brother’s heel because he wants to be the firstborn and have the birthright and the best blessing. The next scene will explain some more.

One day when they are teenagers, Eisav came in from the hunt, tired and hungry.

Yaakov was cooking lentil stew. The Midrash says he was cooking it for his father because Abraham had died and Yitzchak was mourning. It is touching that Yaakov is cooking for his father because we know that Yitzchak loved Eisav because of the meat he brought 45

him. Here we have a hint that that Yaakov might have also have craved his father’s love and attention and so he too cooks up a delicacy for his father, but it couldn’t be more different from the meat Eisav cooks – it’s lentils.

At this point Eisav asks Yaakov for some lentils and Yaakov said what he’s been waiting for his whole life, “I will give you the lentil stew if you sell me your birthright”. Eisav, who must have been very, very hungry, said “I am going to die anyway, so what use is a birthright!”.

And so he sold Yaakov his birthright for a bowl of pottage.

From this scene we learn two things about the boys. This is the first time they open their mouths to speak but we can see Yaakov is still in his state of mind, he wants his brother’s birthright, and he hasn’t got over it since birth!!!

Eisav is in a death state of mind, he seems to be saying “what’s the point of life, what’s the point of caring, it all adds up to death anyway, so what’s the point”! So Eisav sells the birthright which is a sign of life and caring about life, for a bowl of lentils. We also learn that Yaakov is not really so simple, anymore. He is sly and seizes any opportunity.

It’s after this that Yaakov steals Eisav’s blessing from Yitzchak by disguising himself as Eisav and has to run away from home due to Eisav threatening to kill him. Not only this, but the Jewish tradition teaches us that Eisav’s descendants become oppressors of the Jewish people, causing us problems,

from the Greeks, to the Romans and beyond.

I’ve spoken a little about the harm that jealously does between people. But there is also jealousy and fighting between entire nations and it seems as if the story of Yaakov and Eisav becomes enlarged onto the world stage as an idea of tension between the Jewish people and those who oppress us. On the one hand, this is real because know anti-Semitism exists and we do have to be wary of people who express ideas of

hating Jews. On the other hand this also creates a problem, where we have this idea of us and them, and sometimes we fear people who are different from us, even thought we don’t have to fear them.

I wonder what would have happened if Yitzchak and Rivkah had loved their boys equally and had taught them “sharing is caring” and “you know what boys, let’s share the blessing and the birthright”.

Maybe the whole of Jewish and world history would be different.

Nimrod Shaked / Parashat Yitro

This portion talks about standing in front of Mt. Sini and accepting the ten commandments meaning the rule of God. A lot is happening in that portion, even more can be said about it, but we all have limited time so let’s concentrate on the main and important part of the commandments themselves.

The ten commandments can be separated into two groups: the first three declare the oneness of God, and the other seven is conduct of behavior which is the basis for the whole Jewish law system. We need to remember there an earlier set of commandments seven commandments for the sons of Noah, which are given to the whole humanity - one family by the way - right after the rainbow promise. The difference between these two sets of rules is that in the earlier one the three 46

commandments that affirm the connection between God and his people does not exist.

In the next seven we have a kind of a secondary separation the first two can be seen as a link between God and humanity. The first one is keeping the Shabbat in which affirm our connection to God and remembering him in our actions and prayers. The second one is honoring your father and mother (or if you take my advice your mother and father) and that in a way puts them very close to God. The last five are short and clear - do I really need to explain these - they are the making of a good human being doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from they are important in our relation between each other.

Emmylou Savage / Parashat Naso

My parshah is the portion of Naso, and the section I read talks about a very ancient ascetic, the Nazir. There are a lot of dos and don’ts of Judaism, but you’ll be pleased to know that the Nazirite vow is completely optional!

Let me first tell you what a Nazir is. A Nazir is defined as “separate” - and understood as a special vow of separation piety and abstinence. A Nazir is a person who takes a special vow onto him or herself and commits to 3 things: • Nazirs have to grow their hair – and can never cut it • They can’t eat anything fermented like wine or grapes • And they can’t have any contact with any dead bodies, even members of their own family.

What I found very interesting is that when a person takes a Nazirite vow they simply verbally declare their vow by saying “I am now becoming a Nazir”.

Now some of you might be sitting here thinking “wow this is a strange Israelite vow!” and I wouldn’t blame you for that.

But when I learnt about what the vow entailed, it sprung a thought in my and my father’s minds. As some of you may know, my uncle Anthony was a working sailor and he was lost at sea a few years ago. When he put out to sea, to travel thousands of miles to other continents to deliver a boat, it was almost like he 47

took a Nazrit vow in a sense. Over 40 or 50 trips across the ocean on 40 or 50foot boats, Anthony was separate from society. He wouldn’t cut his hair, he couldn’t eat or drink anything fermented, and obviously he had no contact with the dead so in a way being on the ocean was a like a Nazrit undertaking. The ancient art of sailing can be likened to take a Nazrit vow. And to me there is another way you can connect what my uncle did to the vow.

In the reading we learn that ‘All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD’. What does it mean - to be holy unto the LORD? On the ocean my uncle felt closest to the LORD because he would speak about it when he returned and resumed his life on land.

The best-known Nazarite is Samson who had God-given physical strength. This was quickly withdrawn when Samson ended his separation by cutting his hair.

Now if a Nazir’s time came to an end, by breaking one of the oaths, he would come to the temple, shave his hair and offer sacrifices, and he would then basically start the vow again. I really like the way in which this is set up, because a Nazirite gets a second chance, and this a great lesson for me since I am doing my Bat Mitzvah - one thing i'm pretty sure you dont get a second chance to do! But it is more application to me going to the arts school where there is a

lot of pressure for me and my peers to be perfect within our chosen artistic field. But the Nazirite has proven that it is ok to make mistakes and it’s ok not to be perfect. But if you do you have to get back up, offer a sacrifice and start again.

I mentioned that there is a ritual at the temple to end the Nazirit vow. During this ritual the Nazir offers a sin offering.

This has confused many scholars who are curious as to why a Nazir has to bring a sin offering. There are two Medieval Rabbis who discuss this and each of them have different opinions.

Rambam or Maimonides said that the Nazir’s sin is that he thought that was something wrong with the physical world and he wanted to detach himself

48

from it. Rambam said that is isn’t the Jewish way to give up the physical world. We are meant to lift up the physical world, but we don’t have to give it up. He is of an opinion that if you want to give up the physical world this is the way, but in its essence, it isn’t Jewish. Ramban or Nachmanides on the other hand said that there is something holy about sometimes giving up the physical world and that the sin of the Nazir is breaking the vow which returns him to the physical world.

I agree with Rambam, in saying that we shouldn’t give up the physical world, because all our holy moments are marked with wine.

Translations from Modern Hebrew Poetry Rabbi Sa’ar Shaked in association with Professor Merle Williams Natan Alterman, from "Outdoor Stars"

Yet again returns the melody

*

You had left behind in vain

Here are the woods with their murmuring leaves

And once again the road opens wide And a cloud in its sky, a tree in its rains Still await you, wanderer

Here is the air from its dizzying height I do not wish to write about them I wish to touch their hearts

And the wind shall rise Flying like a swing Lightning will pass above you And a sheep and a doe shall bear witness That you fondled them and continued walking

To carry bread with salt, water in my pail And as the ways turn white Offer provisions to my great brothers Across the length and breadth of our father’s fields *

With your hands empty and your city far away

Tongues of bells and whistles in the pasture And the field golden until evening.

Not once have you bowed down

Silence of the green wells,

To a green wood or a laughing woman

My wilderness and my path.

And treetops, streaming down like eyelids.

The woods rising out of the dew Shine like glass and metal.

Never shall I stop looking, never shall I stop breathing, I shall die and continue walking.

49

Natan Yonatan / from "Poems in the Shelter of Evening"

Sunset

My beloved, perhaps you still remember How we stood there, you and I, Illuminated by the radiance of the lingering sun

And yet before the evening's curtain was drawn, On the horizon between the earth and the sea, we saw How a caravan of camels padded past – Gently over the frontier of silence.

Between Bei't Jobrin and the crossroad of Kiriyat Gat. And we were so amazed by the wonder of that light, As though the whole world was ignited by an aura of fire, A canopy of purple and violet,

Such a sunset of sadness and beauty: May it be, at the end of the road, one day That our sinking day will be gathered in Like that southern sunset at the crossroad of Kiryat Gat.

Blue velvet in the middle of the desert.

At the End of the Road

In every dawn In every place

There is dew for those who tremble,

There is a chasm for the bold

And light for those who love

And shade for the weary

And cold stones and wild grass.

And a fountain pouring out coolness.

In every sunset There is an end for the storm-driven And a tree for the childless And a rock for those who lie down at the end of the road.

50

Esther Raab, “The Pines of Carmel”

All the green juicy chestnuts of the Luxembourg Gardens, All of Versailles’ pruned, combed spruces, I’d give for you, pines of Carmel!

My green, slender brothers, Stiff, twisting, your tops unruly, Familiar with the mighty sea winds.

Hanging onto nothingness, Your treetops sail between heaven and sea Like the cloaks of prophets, shrieking, soaring; All bow down to the east – A gathering of humble holy men!

Their parched roots groping to cling To the essence of the ancient earth Sowing stone with embracing splendour.

At your feet - the rain-washed stone, Your fallen needles like a crowned altar, Your branches - green candles bent by the warmth of their hearts – Burning incense to the expanse of sky Through the melting of their grey-green resin.

Carmel pines are weeping in the wind, Moaning and whispering of prophets and kings, The pines of Carmel intertwined, bending My lean, pure brothers.

51

Leah Goldberg, from "All the Poems"

The scent of a spring rain-shower, rising from the paving stones,

Whether it was the look in your eyes that sparked in me thousands of lightning flashes

The melody of the street-lights, the tale of the violin,

I don't know whether I went with you, toward you, in streets intoxicated with love.

The stars in heaven, sinking into my shining glass,

It was spring with laughter hidden in every opening bud,

All of them, all of them, I’ll remember.

A covenant pledged in blood and wine,

It’s just that I don't know

Everyone who cast me a longing, yearning look I believed to be – you.

* Shall it come to pass?

Will days of forgiveness and grace truly come again When you will walk in the field, you will walk there as the simple have done, And your bare foot will be stroked by leaves of the pasture, Or the harvest stubble will prick you with a sweet stabbing.

Or a shower of rain will chase you with its accumulated drops, pattering On your shoulders, chest, neck and refreshed head.

You will walk in the damp as tranquility spreads within you Like light on the fringes of cloud.

You have breathed in the scent of the furrow, breathing in calm, You have seen the sun in a pond’s golden mirror.

For such things are simple and living; you are allowed to touch them, You are allowed, allowed to love.

You will walk in the field, on your own. You will not be scorched by the heat of past burnings On the paths that bristled with horror and blood.

With integrity of heart, once again you will be humble and yielding Like grass, like one who is human.

52

Yona Wallach, ‘One accumulates memories’

One accumulates memories Like ants during the summer months, Like a grasshopper at summer-time, And sometimes – one sings.

And in winter the ants gather in Move along their possessions and consume slowly Their possessions and the winter.

And in winter the grasshopper sings at the doors To taste those memories of the beloved season Which in his song had completely slipped away from him.

* Yona Wallach, “A poem”

In a secret cranny of the cliffs, A doe is drinking water.

What lies there for you and me, my doe?

Except the cliffs of my heart?

Except the wellspring of my life?

Except a secret ...

53

What lies there, my doe For you and me?

Except my love.

Erez Biton, ‘The School for the Blind in Jerusalem’

When we were children at the school for the blind in Jerusalem, seven children would take hold of one child telling him - “You be our father” telling her- “You be our mother” and press one childish body into another to concentrate some warmth as though by accident.

And we would create families-families

we would call one of the boys – “Father Shalom” and one of the girls – “Mother Shoshana” and one girl I used to call my sister, my sister Rachel and another boy my brother, my brother Yossi so, we used to create kinds of families when we were children at the school for the blind in Jerusalem.

Agi Mishol, ‘Calypso’

Who will bless you and keep you and when you drive, who will rest a hand on the nape of your neck wherever you may be, who will brighten your eyes who will make his face shine upon you who will light a candle for you at the end of the day will lift up a blanket to wrap around you will cover you with kisses will fuse with you, breast to breast and be gracious to you who will put on a CD for you bless you and keep you in harrowing times who will comfort you who will envelop you in loving arms so you lose yourself safely in his tender body

heart-spliced, who will complete you?

54

55

56