Judaism & Ecology -- 10/23/70

1970 was the dawn of the environmental movement in the United States and the world at large. Sidney Ballon uses the annual reading from Torah of the story of creation to remind us of the gift that was entrusted to mankind as stewards of the Earth. He sees our failure to take care of the planet as a lack of social responsibility.

We got into this state because we failed to realize the effect of our advanced technology, but what we sometimes fail to realize, however, is that this whole question of the degradation of our environment is…perhaps, even more significantly a question of values.

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

This is the week when we begin again to read the Torah from its very beginning — and as was alluded to in the brief excerpt that we read a few moments ago, the Torah begins by speaking to us of the creation of the world. The concept of creation that we are given by the Torah is that the world is the handiwork of God. The Torah has no uncertainty about the beginning of this planet or of the beginning of life. It states very positively that the world was created from nothingness by the divine command, and that God also placed upon it the various forms of life that exist, and that the last form of life to be created was man who was considered the highest form of life and who was commanded to populate the earth and to rule over the earth and all that is therein.[i]

Throughout the centuries it has been generally accepted that man was, indeed, the highest and most intelligent form of life and that he did, indeed, have the capacity to rule over the earth. It is only quite recently that we have begun to have our doubts.[ii] It is not only that man does not get along with his fellow man that is the problem. That is after all an old story. That problem was foreseen even in these very first chapters of the Torah in the story of Cain and Abel.[iii] From the very beginning we have seen how man could be cruel to his fellow man, but what is comparatively a new development is that we have become aware that man does not seem able or does not seem to be willing to take care of the world itself in a proper manner, and that man is abusing the planet and may perhaps even ultimately render it unfit for habitation and choke out his own life by his foolish ways.

Suddenly the word ecology has become important to our vocabulary. We have become aware that the dominion over nature, which the Torah tells us that God gave to man at the very beginning, is something that can end in disaster. God, we are told, looked upon the world which he created and he found that it was good, but then he turned it over to man and he did not realize that perhaps this was not so good.

What has been happening? A new pamphlet entitled The Crisis of Ecology — Judaism and the Environment has just been published by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. It was written by Albert Vorspan[iv] and is intended to be a supplement to his book used in religious school classes entitled Jewish Values and Social Crisis. This pamphlet begins with a mock obituary notice written by a student at the University of Illinois as follows:

Michigan, Lake.[v] Memorial services for Lake Michigan will not be held as such; however, visitation will remain in effect in definitely. The lake, aged 23,031, died recently after many years of abuse, stemming primarily from pollution. The lake, once a popular sports and recreation area for millions of people, is survived by the Lakes Superior and Huron. Lake Michigan was preceded in death by Lakes Erie and Ontario.

This sounds humorous, of course, and it might be funny if it were not so tragic and if it were not part of a greater picture of deterioration in our own environment which does, indeed, threatened the survival of mankind in the not too distant future.

The pamphlet, Judaism and the Environment, goes on to point out a few more of the disastrous things that have been happening such as the fact that the State of California is suffering from a constant increase of nitrogen acid in the air which could eventually filter out all sunlight, the fact that year he is so polluted that there is even the fear that it might catch on fire; the fact that Santa Barbara's beautiful beaches have been so damaged by oil leakage that the beaches and all fish and wildlife in the area have been tremendously damaged; the fact that more than 140 million tons of smoke and noxious fumes are belched into the air over the United States in a year; 7 million automobiles are discarded, 20 million tons of paper, 48 billion cans, 28 million bottles and jars; 50 trillion tons of hot water bearing various kinds of acids and muck are poured into our rivers and other waters, and even more. Insecticides have penetrated virtually the entire fish and animal population of the world. And it might also have mentioned that we, in this area, are also suffering constantly from the air pollution in New York City which is seldom at a satisfactory level; and we read regularly of the industrial pollution of the shoreline of Long Island, and the horrible state of the Hudson River, and so on.

What a mess we are making of this world that God saw was good! We got into this state because we failed to realize the effect of our advanced technology, but what we sometimes fail to realize, however, is that this whole question of the degradation of our environment is not merely a technological issue. It is not merely a question of how do we prevent the pollution that is taking place. It is, perhaps, even more significantly a question of values. Religious and theological and moral questions are also involved here. Vorspan puts it very meaningfully. What is man? Is he inherently greedy? What is man's relationship to nature? Has God endowed man with dominion over nature? Is competition or cooperation the nature of man's relationship to man? What does it mean to be human? How can human life be made precious once again in an age of onrushing technology and crushing population pressures?

The question might well be raised whether the Torah reading tonight does or does not sanction what man has been doing. We have read, “Be fruitful and multiply and populate the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens and over all living things on earth."[vi] It seems to imply that man is to be the master and that he is given the authority to do as he well pleases with the natural world that God has put at his disposal. This is not, however, how Judaism has interpreted these words. Against the statement that man has dominion over all must be balanced the words of the psalmist, "The Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world and all that is therein."[vii] Man has power but it is God's world nevertheless, and man is responsible to God for what he does with it. The prayerbook reads, "We are the stewards of what we possess." This applies to nature as well. We are the stewards of the natural world and we have no license to slaughter its creatures indiscriminately or to abuse the environment. Man as far as Judaism is concerned has a social responsibility.

The rabbis offer a number of statements in this vein. Here is one that should interest our armed force in Vietnam as well as those lumber companies who thoughtlessly denude our forests. "When you besiege a city, you shall not destroy the trees by wielding an ax against them, for is the tree of the field a man that it should be besieged?"[viii] That would seem to object to a scorched earth policy.[ix] We read also,

Woe to the man who stands on earth and does not see what he sees, for in every drop of water in the sea and every grain of dust in the Earth have I created its own image... Of everything God created nothing was created in vain, not even the things you may think unnecessary, such as spiders, frogs were snakes... Man was not created until the sixth day so that if his pride should govern him, it could be said, ‘Even the tiniest flee preceded you and creation...."

Also another statement most pertinent today,

When God created man he showed him everything in the Garden of Eden and said to him: "See my work, how good it is. Know that everything which I have created, I have created for you. And now take care, lest you spoil and destroy my world, for if you spoil and destroy it, no one will rebuild it after you."

It is almost as if the rabbis foresaw the problem of today and were trying to influence us with regard to it, and remind us that our dominion is not the right to run wild, but is power to be used with intelligence.

Much of our ecological problem today is due to the fact that each industry thinks it in terms of its own selfish interests and there is a blindness to the welfare of that group or society as a whole. A utility that wants a power plant will think only of its own interests in the production of power. A factory that produces harmful waste material will think only of how it can most cheaply and easily dispose of it by dumping it into the river. A builder that wants to develop an area will not concern himself about wildlife or centuries old trees. Examples could be multiplied. Judaism believes in freedom of action but not in that way. The greedy were condemned by the prophet Isaiah when he spoke up against those who "joint house to house and field to field and are unconcerned about their fellow man."[x] You will recall there was even a provision for a sabbatical year for the ground. Once in seven years the ground was not to be tilled or sown[xi] lest it be drained of its fruitfulness by overproduction. The individual would seem to be the loser by this rule but it was thought that in the long run society as a whole would benefit

The rabbis called not only for social responsibility but for reverence for all of nature which was God's creation. The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament show with his handiwork,"[xii] sang the psalmist. Nature reflected God's majesty and man was to act accordingly in his relationship to nature. In fact man was to act in concert with nature in giving homage to God, if we may again quote the psalmist,

Praise the Lord. Praise Him sun and moon. Praise Him all you shining stars... Mountains and all hills and all cedars. Beast and all cattle, creeping things and flying birds... Kings of the earth and all peoples... Young men and maidens together old men and children.[xiii]

Man and beast and in animate nature altogether are called upon to pay their homage to God. And man is hardly fulfilling this ideal when he destroys the beauty of nature and is careless with respect to the life that is part of nature both wildlife and human.

A major problem in curing the situation that now prevails is the cost which would, indeed, be astronomical for many years. Some experts say we need to spend about $25 billion a year if we want to reverse the trend. But what is perhaps more significant than the tremendous cost is the need of recapturing our sense of values. We need an economic system that will control the greed that now makes for pollution. We need less rugged individualism and more cooperation. We need again to recapture a reverence for life and a sense of awe as we confront nature. We need a reaffirmation of the biblical concept of social responsibility. Technology and money can solve many problems, but only if there are also the will and the motivation to do so. Man who was given dominion over all nature according to the Bible and to has indeed asserted his dominion in so many magnificent ways, is now challenged to discipline his powers and to apply his intellectual resources not to the shortsighted accumulation of material benefits that tend ultimately to destroy him, but rather to the farsighted consideration of the problem of his own survival.

---

[i] Genesis 1: 28 “And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'  And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; swarm in the earth, and multiply therein.'”

[ii] Spurred by a devastating oil spill on the beaches of Santa Barbara, and by the Cuyahoga River in Ohio catching fire, 1970 became the year the environmental movement really took off and began to have an impact on our national policy and our daily lives. The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970.

[iii] Genesis 4:1-8 “…And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”

[iv] Albert Vorspan (born 1924) is an author and long-time leader of Reform Judaism. He is director emeritus of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism.

[v] During the 1970's, the use of the Great Lakes as a disposal site for agricultural, industrial and domestic wastes became an increasingly widespread concern due to detrimental effects on fish and wildlife, and the potentially adverse effects on human health.

[vi] Genesis 1:28

[vii] Psalm 24:1

[viii] Deuteronomy 20:19

[ix] A scorched earth policy is a military strategy which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. Throughout the 1960s, the US employed herbicides (chiefly Agent Orange), as a part of its herbicidal warfare program Trail Dust to destroy crops and foliage in order to expose possible enemy hideouts. Agent Blue was used on rice fields to deny food to the Vietcong. Napalm was also extensively used for such purposes.

[x] Isaiah 5: 8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no room, and ye be made to dwell alone in the midst of the land!

[xi] Exodus 23: 10 “And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and gather in the increase thereof; 11 but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow,….”

[xii] Psalm 19:2

[xiii] Psalm 148

Understanding Our Youth -- Rosh Hashanah 9/23/68

The turbulent late 1960s were notable for campus unrest and civil disobedience among the nation’s youth. In this 1968 Rosh Hashanah sermon Sidney Ballon takes one of the most famous and problematic Biblical father-son relationships, that of Abraham and Isaac, and uses it as a foundation for commentary on the so-called generation gap. Despite his discomfort with much of their behavior, he was not unwilling to hear the message of the younger generation and to acknowledge the principles that they sought to uphold.

Young people…are challenging our unrecognized hypocrisies and have the daring to insist that societies and individuals live by the values they preach, that they wipe out the gap between principle and practice, between national creed and policy. Thus, it may well be…that young people have indeed followed the preachment of their elders only too well.

One additional note—from our perspective over forty years later, it is ironic to hear his description of the rapid social and technological changes that may have influenced the youth of that era.

  

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

We have just read from the Torah this morning, as we do every year on Rosh Hashanah, the story of the Akeda—the binding of Isaac.[i] Our tradition attaches a great deal of significance to this chapter. It is considered to be an awesome illustration of the deep commitment of our ancestor Abraham and a convincing demonstration of God's goodness in that Isaac ultimately was spared.

Despite the importance, however, that tradition places upon this tale, it is one which often troubles the modern reader. The idea of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son is a disturbing one. The idea of a father being willing to sacrifice his own son, even though at God's command, is even more disturbing. And our distress is not relieved even though we know beforehand that Isaac will survive and a ram will be offered in his stead.

Several explanations have been offered. We are asked, first of all, to remember that the sensibilities of people in biblical times were not quite as delicate as ours today. We are told that the early Hebrew people also abhorred child sacrifice, but that the idea was not altogether devoid of plausibility for them, because it was practiced by their neighbors. There are many, indeed, who interpret this story of the Akeda as a Hebrew protest against this practice of child sacrifice by other nations. They consider it a subtle way of proclaiming that God did not really want that kind of sacrifice after all.

It has also been pointed out that the telling of the story takes for granted that God's demand is something extraordinary, something no man would think of doing on his own, but precisely therein, it is said, is its value as a test of faith. The very unreasonableness of God's demand and Abraham’s readiness to do something one might ordinarily find repulsive and inhuman was only greater proof to the storyteller of Abraham's worthiness, and this is the point of it all.

The modern reader, however, may still be left unsatisfied by either of these explanations. He may still be disturbed by the fact that God is said to give such an order to a father concerning his son, whatever the reason may be.

Because of this theological difficulty, Edmond Cahn,[ii] who was an eminent professor of law, decided to evaluate this story from a lawyer's point of view, and he came to the conclusion that we really have not been given the true facts of the case. In a typical legal manner his first question is, “Who were the witnesses that could have reported this event and given us the facts?” Only two, obviously, were possible—Abraham and Isaac themselves, who were alone on the mountaintop. He then decides that it could not have been Abraham because everything we know about the character of Abraham is inconsistent with his actions as reported in this passage. Abraham was not a passive personality. The Bible tells us that he was a fighter. He did not fear to argue even with God himself. When Sodom was about to be destroyed, Abraham bargained with God in an effort to save it. He challenged God with the words, "Shall not the judge of all the earth act justly?"[iii] It is unlikely, then, that Abraham, when his own son was involved, would be so submissive and not argue with God against the idea of taking his life. Therefore, the conclusion is that our report of the Akeda has come from Isaac, who must have embellished the incident to suit his own purposes. Isaac, from the little we hear of him, was not as strong a personality as Abraham. He was quieter, more submissive. And one day possibly when he was in despair about the behavior of his twins Jacob and Esau, he must have cried out to them, "Why can't you obey me, as I obeyed my father, and as my father obeyed God?" And he probably tried to impress them by telling them the story of his trip to Moriah with some conscious or unconscious variations. Thus we do not know what really happened on Moriah. We know only what Isaac told his sons to demonstrate to them how obedient he was to his father Abraham.

Whether this theory is correct or not, Jewish tradition had already accepted the idea of Isaac's exemplary obedience to his father. Rashi comments on the phrase, “Vayailchu shnaihem yachdav—And the two of them walked together,”[iv] and he says, “Isaac knew he was to be sacrificed and yet he did not rebel.” It has been very common even for modern rabbis to overlook the more disturbing aspects of the Akeda and to focus rather on this beautifully worded phrase, “And the two of them walked together.” Many a congregation on many a Rosh Hashanah has heard a sermon using this text and expatiating on how wonderful it would be if contemporary fathers and sons would emulate Abraham and Isaac in walking together, in avoiding a clash between the generations, how wonderful it would be if children followed quietly in the footsteps of their fathers.

Apparently these sermons have not been altogether successful. Regardless of how many of them may have been preached, it is obvious that today the problem of walking together, the problem of establishing rapport with our young people is greater than ever before. This is the age of the generation gap, of hippies and of campus rebellions.[v] We are deeply disturbed by the restlessness of so many of our young people, by their defiance of convention, by the violence which has sometimes come to pass. We are perplexed as to the wisest way of responding, and we vacillate between trying to reason together with them and cracking down on them, between exhortation and condemnation.

The thought that I am leading to this morning is that before we altogether condemn it, perhaps we should seek to understand. To be sure, we cannot condone or justify every extreme act that students or other young people have engaged in to make their point, but there may be a silver lining in the cloud. They may even be walking together with us more closely than we realize. A recent book entitled The Young Radicals by Kenneth Keniston[vi] tries to give us an insight into the nature of our thinking young people today. It is worth reading. It is a study of a limited number of college students who have been exceedingly active in the protest movements, but through this study of a few we do gain some understanding of the mood of young people in general. Keniston concludes that it is easy to find good grounds to criticize these young radicals. They seem "unrealistic, anarchistic and romantic" but, however we judge them, he suggests that:

…to describe their search is to enumerate the problems of our changing, affluent and violent society, a society that has barely begun to catch up with the dilemmas it has created.... The new radicals," he says, "are at least confronting the central issues of our time, and confronting them more directly than we can afford to. They are asking the basic questions, making the mistakes, and perhaps moving towards some of the answers we all desperately need.

The adjectives “changing, affluent and violent” seem to be the key to the understanding of our young people. The major factors in the rebellion of youth today seem to be the fact that they have lived in a society which has undergone the most rapid change that the world has ever known; they have lived in a society which is the most affluent the world has ever known, and they live in a society which has suffered the greatest violence the world has ever known, and is capable of even more.

Since World War I, social, technological and political change has proceeded with unprecedented and ever increasing rapidity. Space has been contracted. Communications are instant. Technological skills have increased. Our young people have not only benefited from these changes personally but have, as a result, grown more open and receptive to change than any other generation has been. They are accustomed to the idea of constant readjustment and they do not fear even greater readjustment when they feel that their elders are lagging behind the times.

Not all the young people of our nation, of course, have been freed from the shackles of poverty. We still have our vast number of deprived, but the rebels among our college youth are not usually among them. They have grown up in middle and upper class families which have taken for granted American prosperity and the luxuries it provides. This has not only made them physically comfortable, but also provided the opportunity to be independent, to acquire a higher education, to have the leisure to think for themselves. They begin to seek new values in living that will fill the spiritual emptiness created by such material affluence. These young people are freed from the concern for providing for their own immediate needs, and are thus also free to concern themselves with the welfare of others and the wider society. Their own security makes it possible for them to give thought to the insecurity of others, and they do not hesitate to express their outrage and indignation at the social evils which they see.

Our young people today are also part of the first generation to grow up in the shadow of possible worldwide atomic destruction. They are aware of Hiroshima and they are aware of Auschwitz. They are mindful of the many violent struggles which have taken place in many parts of the world in the past quarter-century and of our own involvement this very day in faraway places, justifiable or not. Such a background of violence has had two opposite consequences. On the one hand, it has stimulated further violence among young people, and on the other, it has convinced, particularly the more highly intellectual, of the futility of conflict and created determination to oppose all war and to bring all violence as much as possible under control.

The study of our young people, however, seems to show that in spite of their seeming desire to change things, they do not really want a change in the basic values which they have learned from their family groups. Our young people often seem to reject the philosophy and politics of their elders, but they still act in accord with a basic set of moral principles which adults also profess to embrace. They are concerned with justice and decency, equality and nonviolence, honesty and kindness. They are profoundly faithful to many of the fundamental values of American democracy. What makes these young people different is that they take these values more seriously than their parents, and they propose that American society and the world set about implementing them. They may seem to be revolutionary and disruptive, but they are merely trying to apply more completely a great variety of political, personal and social principles that no one before seemed to think of extending to such situations as dealing with strangers, relations between the races or international politics. When we talked about peace and love we somehow have managed to exclude foreigners and Negroes from our thinking. Young people, however, are challenging our unrecognized hypocrisies and have the daring to insist that societies and individuals live by the values they preach, that they wipe out the gap between principle and practice, between national creed and policy. Thus, it may well be, as was previously suggested, that young people have indeed followed the preachment of their elders only too well. 

It should be noted that even Isaac, the exemplar of obedience, dared to question a little bit. Intuitively he sensed that something was not quite right and as he walked with his father, you will remember, he turned to him and said, “But where is the lamb for the offering?"[vii] It is true that Isaac did not resist nor protest too loudly, but his question is not too different, basically, from what is troubling our young people today. They, too, are being led by their fathers to a remote place under circumstances that they cannot comprehend, and so they, too, ask, "Where are we going and who will be the sacrifice?" The big difference is that today young people refuse to wait for an angel to stretch forth his hand to save them and so they cry out for themselves:

Do not put forth thy hand unto the youth![viii] Do not offer us as a sacrifice in Vietnam! Do not let us die in hate-infested cities! Do not carry on your business as before, in betrayal of all you have taught us!

We may, therefore, not necessarily excuse all that young people do today in the name of justice. Sometimes they seem to pervert the very justice they crave. But neither should we be too quick to condemn. With William S. Paley,[ix] member of the board of trustees of Columbia University, we must recognize that they do have legitimate complaints. He deplored the student violence on the campus,[x] but he cautioned that "We should not lose sight of the...widespread feeling of sincere discontent, not only about the university but about the entire world." Students may challenge and question, but perhaps in this very fact lies our best hope for the future. There must be some good and promise in young people who risk their careers for a social ideal. If we could only combine the honesty and energy of youth with the judgment and discipline of age. With such a pooling of natural resources we could move much faster toward the objectives we desire in common and achieve more easily the walking together we so fervently desire. May the year to come bring us closer to this goal.

---

[i] Genesis 22:1-19

[ii] Edmond Nathaniel Cahn (1906-1964), taught at New York University, lectured on the philosophy of law at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and on ethics at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City.

[iii] Genesis 18 “23 And Abraham drew near, and said: 'Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 25 That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?'”

[iv] Genesis 22:6 “And Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife; and they went both of them together.”

[v] Protests raged throughout 1968 included a large number of students. Worldwide, campuses became battle grounds for social change. While opposition to the Vietnam War dominated the protests (at least in the United States), they also protested for civil liberties, against racism, for feminism, and the beginnings of the ecological movement can be traced to the protests against biological and nuclear weapons.

[vi] Kenneth Keniston, psychologist, taught at Harvard University, Yale University, and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[vii] Genesis 22:7 “And Isaac spoke unto Abraham his father, and said: 'My father.' And he said: 'Here am I, my son.' And he said: 'Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?'”

[viii] Genesis 22:11-12 “And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said: 'Abraham, Abraham.' And he said: 'Here am I.' And he said: 'Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou art a God-fearing man, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me.'”

[ix] William S. Paley (1901–1990) was the chief executive who built Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) from a small radio network into one of the foremost radio and television network operations in the United States.

[x] The Columbia University protests of 1968 were among the many student demonstrations that occurred around the world in that year. The Columbia protests erupted over the spring of that year after students discovered links between the university and the institutional apparatus supporting the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War, as well as their concern over an allegedly segregatory gymnasium to be constructed in the nearby Morningside Park. The protests resulted in the student occupation of many university buildings and their eventual violent removal by the New York City Police Department.

The Missing Al Chet -- Kol Nidre 10/13/67

When Sidney Ballon speaks in this 1967 Kol Nidre sermon about spousal relationships, at least from the perspective of a son, it seems not only theological and philosophical, but also deeply personal.  I picture the tenderness as well as the friction between two strong and vulnerable and very loving partners.

As is often the case throughout these Mid-Twentieth Century sermons, this piece includes many statements that stand the test of time and others that clearly do not. References to gender do not reflect the sensitivities developed in recent decades. Had this been written today it is likely that the phraseology would be more contemporary and more inclusive when referring to the sanctity of marriage. With that disclaimer in mind, this is a heartfelt and moving description of Jewish values as they apply to committed relationships without respect to gender.

May we, on this Holy Day, always resolve to have God as our partner in our households. May His Divine presence bring peace into our hearts. May we forgive and be forgiven our faults and resolve they shall be no more.

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

One of the distinctive prayers of the Yom Kippur service, with which we are all familiar, is the Al Chet[i]. It is a kind of confessional in the course of which we make mention of a number of human shortcomings we might have been guilty of during the past year, and we pray for forgiveness. In our Reform prayer book this list of sins which we have sinned is a comparatively short one. In the traditional prayer book it is a good bit longer and the worshiper makes mention of many more of his possible shortcomings. But even the longer traditional list, it seems to me, is not quite complete, and something of importance has been left out that might have been included. We read of the sin which we have sinned by disrespect for parents and teachers. We read of the sin which we have sinned by exploiting or dealing treacherously with our neighbor. But strangely enough no mention is made in this prayer of a human relationship more important than with neighbors or teachers, and even more important than with parents, and that is the relationship between husband and wife.

In all probability no great significance should be attached to this omission, but it is nevertheless surprising. It may be due to the fact that the editor of the prayer thought the list of sins as given was already inclusively enough to cover any problems between husband and wife as well, but if this is so, the same thing could also be said about parents and teachers and neighbors. It may, perhaps, be that the author had such an exalted opinion of Jewish family life that it was inconceivable to him that any wrong could be committed between a husband and a wife. The fact is that we Jews collectively do have a reputation for having achieved an exceptionally high quality of family life. A director of the Catholic Conference on Family Welfare once wrote, "Any student of social history will recognize that the world owes much to the Jewish family."

I remember that once when I had occasion to speak to a college sociology class, the professor asked me to comment on the strength of Jewish family life because, he said, the Jewish family had a reputation for more stable, closer ties, and in these days when family life is so shaky and divorce rates so high, it would be worthwhile, he felt, to listen to the secret of success of the Jewish family. To be realistic, however, it must be admitted that even in the most blessed of marriages there may be moments of tension and irritation, and that as human beings none of us do or can attain perfection in any respect. And even though the reputation of the Jewish family is high, surely even as husbands and wives, as well as children, pupils, or neighbors, we may pause on this solemn day and at least think to ourselves an Al Chet for the sin which we have sinned by falling short in some way, in word or deed or attitude, in our family relationships, and we can say in our hearts a prayer for forgiveness from God and from one another.

It would not be amiss on this day when we look to self-improvement in all respects of our life, to ask ourselves why it is that the Jewish family has indeed acquired such renown. What are the basic principles of family life that Judaism has set before us that has helped us achieve such a reputation? There are four Hebrew words or phrases we ought to know around which these principles revolve. And just in case you may not already know them, let us make a bit of a Hebrew lesson out of this sermon period.

The first of these terms is Kiddushin. Very often when performing a marriage ceremony, I center my remarks upon this word which is the traditional name by which the marriage ceremony is known. The literal meaning of Kiddushin is sanctification. And sanctification means investment with holiness. Kiddushin comes from the same root as Kadosh which you will remember from one of the more important Congregational responses in the service—Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, Holy, Holy, Holy. It is from the same root as Kiddush, the prayer over wine by which we sanctify the Sabbath and the festivals. It is also the same root as Kaddish, the prayer by which we sanctify God's name in memory of the dead.

There is an important implication in the use of this term. We know that the institution of marriage rests upon a biological basis—it needs a human physical need and assures continuation of the race. We know that marriage rests upon an economic basis—it makes it much more convenient for men and women to care adequately for the requirements of food, shelter, and other necessities of life. We know that marriage rests also upon a psychological basis—men and women escape their loneliness and satisfy their desire for companionship more easily through marriage. But by the title Kiddushin, Judaism suggests that there is yet another much more significant dimension to marriage than those we have just mentioned. There is the element of holiness. Marriage is a sacred covenant. It is a union involving ethical responsibility and religious principle. Leo Baeck, noted theologian, describes it as "the experience by two people of a divine mystery which commands them to realize and fashion their whole life through each other." It is a relationship so significant that the prophets in the Bible often used the terminology of marriage in describing the covenant which binds together God and Israel. God's love for Israel is compared to that of a husband for his wife. And perhaps more beautifully than anywhere else, this figure is used by Hosea when he proclaims in the name of God, "I will betroth thee unto Me forever, yea, I will betroth thee unto Me in righteousness and in justice, and in loving-kindness and in compassion. And I will betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord."[ii]

Out of this concept of Kiddushin there follows quite naturally the second basic principle upon which the Jewish idea of the family is based and that is Taharat Hamishpacha, the Purity of the Family, by which is meant sexual discipline and fidelity to marriage vows. One of the most significant factors in making for the health and well-being of the Jewish family and the Jewish community was it's a very strong emphasis on the laws against sexual promiscuity. It is interesting to note that just as the marriage covenant was compared in the Bible to the relationship between God and Israel, so also was adultery used as the figure of speech to describe the betrayal of God and the violation of His commandments. We hear a great deal today about the New Morality.[iii] The New Morality does not consider it necessary to limit the sex relationship to marriage. It has other criteria which Judaism, however, cannot accept because Jewish tradition calls for discipline, fidelity, and responsibility in the sexual relationship.

The third important phrase in Jewish family life is Shalom Bayit, literally peaceful household. This, too, is but a secondary aspect of Kiddushin, for how can marriage be sanctified if the household is contentious? To avoid contention there must be truth, respect, and understanding. Truth, the rabbis said, is the beginning and end of all things, and this is especially so in the circle of family life. Deception even in little things contributes to the erection of barriers, the diminishing of sanctity. Husband and wife may differ on many questions but they cannot afford to conceal the truth, and the lines of honest communication must remain open; nor is telling the truth merely a matter of refraining from deception. It is also a matter of not holding back one's true feelings when they should be made known. It is not good, necessarily, to avoid debate by seeking refuge in silence. It is important to be able to bring into the light the truth of our feelings, and to bring into the light whatever it is that disturbs us. Otherwise what we may repress may remain within us and continue to disturb us until it surprises us by breaking out at some time in an unfortunate and undesirable manner. The knowledge of husband and wife, that one can have complete faith in the other, that there is honest communication between them with regard to what is spoken or even unspoken, is a cement that strengthens the bond between them.

Lines of communication must operate, furthermore, not only when there are grievances that need to be aired, but also for the expression of appreciation and tenderness when appropriate. What may sometimes seem to be a problem can melt away in the warmth of an affectionate word or an appreciative caress. Everyone has the need to be loved and appreciated, and we respond to those who express such love and appreciation to us. It is not a sign of weakness nor maudlin sentimentality when we speak such words. It is rather the stuff by which homes are brightened.

And the last Hebrew term I would mention this morning is Gidul Banim, the raising of children—the readiness to assume a responsibility for the future. The sanctification of the marriage bond is not complete without such a sense of purpose and meaning. It is most unfortunate that altogether too many young people look upon marriage only as the fulfillment of a personal desire for romance and happiness. There is no doubt that romance in marriage is desirable and that happiness is not to be disparaged. In the marriage ceremony we even recite a benediction which praises God who maketh bride and bridegroom to rejoice together. But Hollywood notions of romance are not realistic and married couples do not remain forever on cloud nine. And happiness is not something we can go out and acquire merely because we selfishly want it. It is, rather, a byproduct of a more stable and meaningful way of life. Marriage implies not only the satisfaction of our own personal desires but a social responsibility. The purpose of Jewish marriage is to create a Jewish home, to raise a new Jewish generation. A child is not only the fulfillment of the love of husband and wife, but is the link with the future of our people and the vehicle for transmission of our heritage. Husband and wife are thus obligated for the development of their child. They have the responsibility of giving him a sense of security and self-esteem, so that he may be an adequate human being. They are to provide him with the benefit of a good example and to inculcate him with an appreciation of Jewish values. The rabbis had even said that not the biological parent is the true parent of a child, but rather his teacher is the true parent. To fulfill the highest ideal of parenthood is then to be mindful of the responsibility of being, in the best sense, the teacher of one's child. Where husbands and wives lift themselves above a selfish concern for themselves and look upon themselves as partners in the fulfillment of some higher Jewish purpose, as partners with God in the creation and perpetuation of life, where they join wholeheartedly in the responsibility of creating a pleasant and meaningful Jewish home, where they express a mutual interest in the wholesome Jewish development of the child, their marriage is sanctified and approaches the Jewish ideal.

To repeat the Hebrew phrases I would have you remember, Kiddushin Taharat Hamishpacha, Shalom Bayit, and Gidul Banim—sanctification, purity of the family, a peaceful household, and the responsible raising of children—these are the most important traditional ideals of the Jewish life. Taken all together they imply that a happy, successful marriage is not something acquired by chance or good fortune. It is rather something into which we have poured the proper ingredients. It is something to which we must give our best effort. It is something which resides upon a meaningful philosophy, upon appropriate objectives. It requires that we build upon a sound ethical and moral foundation.

The rabbis of the Midrash once pointed out that the Hebrew word for man, which is "Ish" and the Hebrew word for woman which is "Isha" have each two letters in common and a third wherein they differ. The two letters which differ are yod and hay which taken together spell "Yah," a Hebrew word for God. The two letters they have in common are alef and shin which taken together spell "Aish," the Hebrew word for fire. Thus they pointed out that if you take away God from man and woman you are left with fire. Only when God is present can there be a peaceful and a meaningful union. May we, on this Holy Day, always resolve to have God as our partner in our households. May His Divine presence bring peace into our hearts. May we forgive and be forgiven our faults and resolve they shall be no more. May we all know the joy that comes from a happy home and a devoted family. May we be gladdened by our children, and may God's blessings ever be with us.

Amen.

---

[i] Al Chet (or Al Cheyt) Hebrew, literally "For the sin ..." is a confessional recited by the entire congregation in unison, each line begins "For the sin we committed before You through ..." followed by the sin or general classification of sin. While typically translated as sin, the word Chet comes from archery and more literally means “missing the mark”—a somewhat more forgiving expression than the word “sin” in common usage.

[ii] Hosea 2:19-20

[iii] Surprisingly I found no explicit definitions of the New Morality. It is linked, however, to the term Situation Ethics coined by Harvard professor Joseph Fletcher whose 1966 book on he topic described a system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes. The sexual revolution and free love movement of the Sixties, spawned by the new technology of oral contraception, were primary instances of Situation Ethics and the New Morality—“if it feels good, do it, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.”