We must believe in free will; we have no choice – an old saying

Is the universe indeterministic or deterministic? Random or designed? Are our lives predestined or not?

At first glance, one would assume that the answer to these questions is dependent on belief in G-d. Acceptance of G-d as Creator of the universe would seem to imply that the universe was created with design and purpose. If however, one does not accept that premise, than existence could very well be a result of a random set of circumstances, with no particular plan and direction.

Religion too would appear to be predicated on a clearly defined and even absolute structure: Immutable laws that define and regulate human behavior. By contrast, many secular schools of thought embrace a more relativistic approach, e.g. moral relativism, which rejects rigid guidelines.

Yet, upon further thought the lines are not that clearly drawn; both approaches overlap. Even according to the circumstantial argument, the universe is clearly driven by an extraordinary inflexible order. From the physiological to the cosmological, we live in a world of fundamental systems ruled by defined and unwavering laws (the so called “laws of nature”). Conversely, belief in G-d and religion dictates the concept of free will, that our choices are not predestined, allowing for surprises and an unexpected future.

Indeed, a strong argument could be made that a world controlled by “natural law” is airtight with no room for spontaneity. As French philosopher Laplace and others have written in advancing the probability theory, if we were to know all the data about any phenomenon we could accurately predict all the events that were yet to come. Since we live in a causal world, defined by cause and effect, there is no room for true randomness. In other words, randomness and probabilities are not an objectively measurable phenomenon but rather just a measure of our lack of knowledge. A coin toss, for example, is not necessarily characterized by randomness: if we knew the shape and weight of the coin, the strength of the tosser, the atmospheric conditions of the room in which the coin is tossed, the distance of the coin-tosser’s hand from the ground, etc., we could predict with certainty whether it would be heads or tails. However, as this information is not available to us, it is convenient to assume it is a random event and ascribe probabilities to heads or tails.

Yet, paradoxically there are those that use this same scientific approach to see all of existence as random. It would seem logical that thinkers who leave no room for randomness in existence should also embrace the fact that existence itself was put in place by a Grand Designer…

Ironically, a G-d based approach to life allows for indeterminism based on free will more than a scientific approach does.

So how do we make sense of these contradictory approaches? What part of our lives is predetermined and what part is determined by our choices?

The question most relevant to us, of course, is whether we are victims of circumstances or whether we can control the destiny of our lives.

Purim provides us with the fascinating answer. Purim – the name of the holiday – is so called because Haman cast lots to determine the date to kill the Jews. “Pur” in Persian means “lot.”

Strange name to call a holiday: Lots. Is there anything more random than a lottery? Why would we give such a name to a holiday that commemorates the salvation of an entire people from genocide?

It is because Purim teaches us a radical message.

Not order but indeterminism is the essence of existence. G-d, Creator of the cosmic order and of all rules of nature, is not bound by these or any laws and structures. On His essential level, G-d transcends any form of structure and definition. Yet, this same G-d and His inherent indeterminism chose to create and manifest in a highly deterministic universe. Indeterminism chose a very determined set of laws. The essence of G-d is beyond determinism and indeterminism, and therefore can combine both.

There is randomness and there is randomness. There is a randomness that is beneath structure and laws – when things get out of control and result in an arbitrary type of existence, directionless. This is what we call being a victim of circumstances – circumstances have taken control of your life and you are left lost and aimless. But then there is a randomness that comes from a “place” that is not bound by laws, a place that transcends and is beyond structures.

The structure of existence, the mystics tell us, originates from the Essence of Reality that is beyond any structure. Sometimes our own structures block us from seeing that essence. Our plans, schedules, organized systems can get in the way of experiencing the core. Our challenge is to discover the transcendent within the systems.

Purim embodies this power. Purim reaches a place that is “beyond our structured perception” (“ad d’lo yoda”). Logic and the rules of existence should have dictated a tragic end for the Jews in Persia. After all Haman was in power and he had persuaded the King Achashveirosh to annihilate the Jewish people. Yet, it doesn’t work out that way. Despite all odds, defying all logic, the tables are turned and instead of tragedy the day becomes one of great celebration, with Haman hung on the gallows he built for Mordechai. Suddenly, unexpected, darkness is transformed to light.

Purim is the true story of life – as it is behind the scenes. Not man-made plans but a Divine hand is at work. Amidst the seemingly random events of life, underlying forces are the true shapers of destiny.

The same Purim force has been working throughout history. Many great nations have come and gone. They had great plans, powerful armies, super wealthy coffers, breathtaking culture – each empire in its heyday thought that it had it made. Yet, not one has survived. Not the Egyptians, not the Assyrians, not the Babylonians, not the Persians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Byzantines, not the Spanish, not the Portuguese. What happened with all their structures, systems and plans for permanent world dominance? Man-made mortal plans can only create mortal, impermanent structures. Survival, eternal survival is dependent on a force that originates from a place that is beyond logic, beyond the odds, beyond defined structures.

The consequences of this idea are far reaching. No matter how your life has been shaped, no matter how you may have been scarred by parents, peers and social attitudes, no matter what experiences have defined you – you are never a victim of circumstances; you always have a window to a place that defies structures. With all the determinism of life, with all its causes and effects, there is no conclusive, airtight determinism that controls your life. You always have an opening to an indeterministic place that opens you up to new possibilities.

Purim tells us that it is not our logic and plans that runs the world. It is a higher force that may manifest in random experiences, but within the randomness lies the greatest power of all.

Yes, we live in a world of structure. Yes, we are bound by its rules. But, at the same time when we learn to navigate we can use the structure to transcend structure. We must do everything we can within the laws of nature, within our parameters. Yet, simultaneously we must remember that the essence within is beyond our plans. When we do everything in our natural power, the deeper essence emerges.

That’s what Purim is all about: Take your structures, take your defined reality and turn it inside out and upside down, and see new things emerge.

Your life is dark, truly dark. Purim teaches us that in one moment darkness can be transformed to light.

You feel limited, locked. Purim opens up new opportunities.

You feel hopeless. Purim suddenly gives you hope.

You have a great life, but you wonder how high can you reach? Can we mortals touch the sky? Can we achieve immortality, create eternity? Purim tells us we can.

All this – because within the inflexible structure lies a fundamental indeterministic freedom, that is not bound by any structures, laws and definitions.

This paradox has now become recognized in modern physics. According to quantum mechanics a fundamental indeterminism exists on the microscopic level. On that level entities don’t have shape or form, they are in a “state of probability,” with the potential to go different ways. This probability or uncertainty is not a result of lack of knowledge, but it has been proven to be an inherent probability.

What makes this even more fascinating and strange is the fact that, while the basic, subatomic structure that comprises all of existence is fundamentally indeterministic, simultaneously macroscopic existence is fundamentally structures and deterministic! How is it possible that an indeterministic core should produce such deterministic results? A key component, for instance, of computer chips is driven by the uncertainty principle of subatomic indeterminism. Yet, the computer chip produces absolutely deterministic results that we depend on daily.

Where do the two worlds of determinism and indeterminism meet? Science has yet to find out.

What science does not yet know, Purim has always known.

So where does indeterminism meet determinism? At your doorstep. And on Purim the door opens between these two realities.

The Real and the Unreal

One morning I was welcomed to the following heart warming e-mail:

“What’s all this BS in your writings?”

“BS!” Why would someone accuse me of that? And why state it in such an insulting manner?

Of course our e-mail box offers us many surprises. One of the appeals of e-mail – at least at this early stage of its novelty – is its spontaneity. We are ready to endure the deluge of spam, which constitutes 80% of all e-mail, for the several e-mails that will inform, entertain and above all, surprise us.

Yet, this BS surprise would top them all. Read on.

I receive much e-mail, some complimentary, some critical. But even critique has its etiquette. Why would someone who doesn’t even know me be so blunt as to categorize my writings as “BS”?!

I am not suggesting that I don’t deserve such a “compliment” once in a while to put me in my place. And frankly, it doesn’t take much thick skin to ignore a few nasty words.

But as much as a tried I could not disregard the insult. No, this was not about my ego being bruised. The sheer brevity of the words  “what’s all this BS in your writings?” conjured up all my feelings about the search for truth.

After all, I said to myself, the masters teach us that when you are accused of something, even if it’s ostensibly unjustified, there must be a lesson in it for you. Though the criticizer or accuser is accountable for his choice, it behooves you (the accusee – is there such a word?) to soul search for some semblance of truth in the critique.

So, I began thinking about my own hypocrisies and inconsistencies. Do I actually live up to all that I write? How sincere are the thoughts I share in my writings and classes? Isn’t it easier to advise others than to implement the same advice in your own life? How real am I, and how much is performance?

The questions go on.

As do the justifications.

BS indeed.

Then again, who among us humans is immune to these distortions?

As one thought leads to the next, the words of the mystics loom ever larger: “We live,” they tell us, “in a false world.” “Alma d’shikra,” a deceptive world. Ever since the Divine concealed its presence in what is called in Kabbala as the Lurianic doctrine of tzimtzum, our perception of reality is but a myopic view, which struggles to see the “hand inside the glove.” Often we can even deceive ourselves into thinking that there is no other “hand” that the one we grasp.

So this “BS” e-mail has provoked a soul-search in my own being.

Or has it?

Comics say that two people never repent: Writers and speakers. Why? Because though most of us have our failings, inspiring words we read or hear often motivate us to improve ourselves. No hope however for a writer or a speaker. When either of them hears an inspiring thought, instead of taking it personally to heart, the writer or speaker says: “great material for my next speech or article…”

And what about someone who is both a so-called writer and lecturer?

I share all this with a friend. I forgot that he was such a cynic. He simply dismisses everything: “And you think that soul searching is honest? It’s all part of the same BS. People need to feel that they are redeeming themselves from the falsity of life, so they create another illusion called salvation. That helps keep them sane. But it’s all part of the same false program, all part of the same “matrix.”

“All of life,” he goes on, “is manipulation. The only difference is that some manipulation is apparent; the rest is camouflaged in the cloak of sincerity. The best manipulators are the ones that cover all their tracks,” he smirks.

“Might as well be speaking to Voltaire,” I think to myself, “who cynically stated that if G-d didn’t exist we would need to create one.”

I for one cannot accept this cynical approach, which renders all of life meaningless, which would of course, undermine the very basis of our organization.

Is this another form of BS? Everyone is promoting their own BS. For some it takes the shape of honesty. Man, that really sounds like a lot of BS. Even BS is a bunch of BS.

Ok, so where does that leave us?

If you’re confused, don’t worry, that’s part of the story.

If you really allow yourself to dwell on the topic and wander into the myriad of possibilities, true and false can become a real quandary. Who defines the criteria? And above all, is their any logical refutation to the million dollar question: Maybe all of this is just part of one big illusion? Even the refutation itself is part of the illusion.

All this provoked by a few, for all I know, harmlessly intended words via e-mail.

Finally, I decided to swallow my pride and write back to the “BS” accuser.

I wrote my words carefully:

“Dear… I received your e-mail stating “What’s all this BS in your writings?” You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I hope you don’t mind me asking you what exactly provoked you to write these words? Sincerely [signed].

His response shocked me:

“Dear Rabbi. I am appalled that you think that I would insult you. On the contrary I greatly respect you and your work. I have learned much from your teachings, and I look forward to your weekly e-mails.

“I happened to notice the letters “bsd” appearing in some of your publications, and I couldn’t help but wonder what is all this “bsd” in your writings?”

BS or BSD?

I couldn’t stop laughing.

Here I am undergoing an elaborate self-appraisal about honesty and truth, waxing eloquent about the philosophies of life, when it all comes down to a good ol’ typo: Instead of “BS” this fellow meant to write “BSD.” He was wondering why there were  “BSD” references in our writings and publications.

I wrote back to him explaining the significance of “BSD.

“BSD is an acronym for “B’Syayta D’shemaya,” which in Aramaic means “with the help of Heaven.” An long-time Jewish custom is to write “BS”D” or “BH” (Boruch Hashem, blessed is G-d), at the beginning of a letter, at the top of a page or the opening of written work.

BSD is a way of reminding us that our works, our writings, our very beings, are all a Divine gift. It’s a way of humbly acknowledging and that our creativity is possible only with help from a greater place. This is turn helps us actually become a channel on Earth for Heavenly expression.

It’s funny how things work. Of all terms “BS” is the one that ends up reminding me of  “BSD.”

If you look closely enough, the “BS” of this world reminds us of “BSD.”

Or shall I say: the “BSD” helps remind us of the “BS.”

There are two ways to reach truth: Interpolation or extrapolation. One is through rigorous inquiry in search of reality, looking for glimpses and signs of deeper truths. The other is through the process of elimination: By recognizing the falseness of life and the frailty of existence, by dissecting and deconstructing reality as we perceive it and challenging our very perception or perception itself, we come to discover, by contrast, an alternative, higher reality.

The Rebbe of Kotzk once interpreted, in his characteristic sharp way, the famous Midrashic analogy about Abraham’s search for truth. A man was wandering in an untamed forest when he came upon a brightly lit palace. The man exclaimed: “There must be an owner of this palace.” So too Abraham, wandered about the wilderness of a pagan world, and upon seeing the infinite order of the universe, recognized that it must have an architect. Every book has an author.

Says the Kotzker: “Birah dolekes” (a brightly lit palace) can also be interpreted as meaning “a burning palace.” When Abraham saw how the world was “burning” in distortion and corruption, he realized: There must be an owner…

BS and BSD – two choices we have before us at all times.

As we read in this week’s Torah chapter about the construction of the Temple, it’s a good time to reflect on its personal meaning:

We were charged to build in our false, material world – a home for the Divine, “Build me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell among you.”

We are not doomed to the trappings of our manipulative world. We have the power to introduce truth. But to do so we need to embrace “BSD” and concretize it in our daily lives.

BS or BSD – which one will it be today?

Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design

The debate rages on.

Is this elegant universe a product of intelligent design or of random coincidences?

The prevailing secular theory for the past century and a half is based on Darwin’s ideas on evolution. Basically his theory consists of two central precepts. The first is universal common descent, that every living creature can trace an unbroken lineage back to the same primitive life forms, which arose billions of years ago from nonliving matter. The second is natural selection, which holds that the entire complexity and ingenuity of life has evolved by the accumulation of small random mutations. Changes that help the organism survive in its environment are more likely to be passed on. Repeated over many generations, the process produces life as we know it.

Yet, strong voices continue to resist evolutionary theory and maintain that the infinite complex synchronicity of the universe reflects the deliberate design of a conscious, rational intelligence, something that has recently been coined “intelligent design.”

A Seattle think tank called the Discovery Institute represents a scientific dissent from Darwinism. About 350 scientists have signed their operative sentence, which reads “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

Polls consistently show that nearly half of all Americans believe in the Biblical account of creation, which states that humans, in their present form, were created in the Divine Image, distinct from animals. Even when it comes to scientists, surveys show that about 40 percent of them say not just that they believe in G-d, but in a G-d who communicates with people and to whom one may pray “in expectation of receiving an answer.”

The debate has recently taken on new dimensions as the battle is being fought in school boards and courts across the country whether evolution should be taught side by side with “creationism;” should evolution be qualified as a theory with flaws; should it be taught at all.

And thus, the war spills over into the seemingly never-ending conflict between science and religion, and between church and state.

Both sides are digging in, with no end in sight.

But what really lies behind this clash?

When we were younger we may have thought that debates like these were primarily ideological. Yet, when you see the emotions surging from both sides of the aisle, it becomes obvious that there is more at stake than mere intellectual free inquiry. Pure conceptual arguments include tolerance for opinions other than our own. On the contrary, healthy intellectual inquiry demands brutal honesty. It compels us to, dispassionately analyze every possible theory, even ones that completely disagree with our initial premise. Indeed one of the key signs of a good theory, one that we can trust, is the process of thoroughness, that every angle was looked at and opposite extremes were weighed, all in the name of discovering truth.

When we see that a debate does not allow for rigorous discretion and becomes emotional to the point of evoking intolerance and even anger, then we know that the argument is precisely that: deeply personal and emotional.

And once it becomes emotional it also becomes subjective, using intellectual arguments as smokescreens that mask the personal implications of the debate.

The evolution debate is undoubtedly a fascinating study in human nature. In itself it tells us perhaps more about the human condition than the actual theories themselves.

Both sides claim to know the exclusive truth. This may not be surprising coming from the religious perspective, which claims the Biblical account as absolute truth. But since when did science become dogma?!

Even from a skeptical perspective, it seems ludicrous to dismiss the religious view as dogmatic and intolerant, and in the same breath declare that a scientific theory is equally absolute. In this skeptical view the argument would go like this: We don’t expect more from the “religious” person who is after all being irrational. But we must expect more from scientists, who after all are the more rational and less subjective ones.

So what can one say when the so-called scientist becomes as adamant as his religious adversary?

The scientific justification for rejecting the Biblical account that man was created by G-d in the Divine image is because it is an assault on a basic principle of the Enlightenment, that science must explain nature through natural causes. “Intelligent design is predicated on a supernatural creator,” says a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. “That’s not science, it’s religion.”

But who defines what “science” is? Where does science end and religion begin? Just as faith cannot dismiss science, science cannot dismiss G-d. Science can say that according to our man-made parameters of science, science includes only that which is empirically provable or disprovable. The statement “G-d exists” or does “not exist” is not science, because it can’t be proved or disproved (as Karl Popper, the Austrian-British philosopher of science, writes).

If both religion and science are part of the search for truth, then they complement each other and both are necessary. If there is a G-d (I say “if” only to satisfy the skeptic), than how can one argue that “science” should determine the rules, not G-d. If science, for instance, is the search for truth based on our human tools, why is it not part of the spiritual journey of understanding G-d’s mind and the rules that He chose to create and run the universe with?

To be sure, anyone with a clear understanding of faith knows, that faith also demands absolute vigor in intellectual inquiry, perhaps even more than the scientist. After all, it is G-d who created the universe with brilliant design. This compels us to study the laws of nature, because understanding its intricate design helps us understand G-d and G-d’s mind. In religion, scientific inquiry takes on a spiritual personality and is part of a Divine experience.

As this week’s Torah portion makes abundantly clear, that logic itself is rooted in the supralogical. Rational thinking is driven by Sinai. See a previous article: Is Logic Logical?

So the question stands: Why does the argument whether the universe is a product of intelligent design or random circumstances go beyond pure intellectual inquiry and extend into the personal and emotional realm – on both sides of the debate?

Allow me to submit that the root of the conflict is actually about the role of G-d in our lives, which can be traced to the earliest development of the battle between science and religion.

Prior to the scientific revolution, which some have conveniently folded into the more general name “The Enlightenment,” monarchs and church authorities ruled. G-d and religion was imposed on all the people. Science came along with – or some say, came as a result of – the repression caused by religious dogma. Understandably therefore, science was heralded as the new savior; one that would redeem us from religious oppression.

Thus science evolved into the barometer of truth, replacing the old barometer of religion and its so-called authorities. Scientists became the new clergy.

But with one “minor” – or major – caveat. Science is not about absolutes. It does not claim a monopoly on absolute truth. As Karl Popper writes:

“Science is not a system of certain, or well-established, statements; nor is it a system which steadily advances towards a state of finality. Our science is not knowledge: it can never claim to have attained truth, or even a substitute for it….We do not know: we can only guess. And our guesses are guided by the unscientific, the metaphysical (though biologically explicable) faith in laws, in regularities we can uncover/discover…The old scientific ideal of episteme—of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge—has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever.”

Yet many of today’s proponents of scientific truth argue its truth as absolute – as adamantly and dogmatically as religious authorities argue their case. Take Richard Dawkins who actually likens religion to a… disease.

Where does this arrogance come from? Is this too a result of human evolution?

The answer, I suggest, lies at the heart of the issue: Intelligent design means purpose. Purpose implies responsibility – responsibility and accountability to the Designer. And therein lies the problem.

Many years ago, at the opening of one of my classes, a young gentleman said that before we begin he would like to ask me a question. “Do you believe,” he asked, “that the universe is a few thousand years old, and that man was created by G-d in the Divine image and did not evolve from lower species?”

“I ask this question of you,” he continued, “because if you do believe this nonsense, which denies contemporary science, I have no interest in listening to your class. I don’t want to be part of a narrow minded discussion of primitive thinkers.”

“Very welcoming question,” I thought to myself.

I answered him: “Listen. I didn’t ask you where you stand on various issues. And I didn’t make any conditions whether you should be allowed to participate in this class. Why don’t we just study together and you’ll judge for yourself, on the merit of the subject, whether this is for you.

“Regarding the issue of the age of the universe and the nature of man, let me say this. Frankly, I have no interest in convincing you of the Biblical account. Yes, according to the Bible the universe has a certain age (far less than the age science claims), and man was created in the Divine Image. However, this is not one of the 13 principles of faith. G-d could have chosen to create the universe at any point. So I don’t find it necessary to get into a debate on the topic.

“The real question is not the age of the universe, but whether we have a relationship with G-d, whether we are responsible to the Cosmic Designer? If you tell me that you believe we have today a personal, dynamic relationship with G-d, than, as I said, I don’t really care for now whether you think the universe is billions of years old.

“But if you tell me that with the universe being billions of years old, the Creator is so far removed from us that He is no longer relevant, than I will take issue with you.”

In other words, don’t use science as a “cover” to show how G-d is irrelevant in our lives.

The bottom line in the Biblical account of creation is human responsibility. The practical significance of the universe being created with design and purpose and the human being created in the Divine Image, is to tell us that our lives have true meaning and we carry responsibility to the Grand Author to fulfill our calling, the purpose for which we here put here in the first place.

I wonder if the argument would still rage if there were no personal implications in a deliberately designed universe. After all, every book has an author. Which would seem to dictate that the greatest book of all – our elegant universe – has the greatest Author of them all.

Perfectly logical. As long as it does not demand anything of us. If however, this conclusion means that we are accountable to the Author, then science suddenly can become a weapon to protect us from the implications of design.

I would love to meet a scientist who would actually acknowledge that.

It’s one thing to use science as a tool of open-minded inquiry. It’s another when this tool spills over to determine ethics and personal responsibility. Healthy science is like a computer – amoral and neutral. Simply a resource. When science is used as an excuse to alleviate our conscience, as Dawkins wrote that Darwin’s theory “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” than science has crossed a serious boundary.

Don’t get me wrong. As you know from my writing, I believe that religion today in many circles has assumed all sorts of distortions. As it has wanders away from its authentic roots, religion often becomes mechanical, dogmatic, fear-driven – another smokescreen crutch for human insecurity. Religion too can become a mask and an escape from our true responsibilities. How often do people behave selfishly, how often do they hurt others in the name of so-called faith?

I would love to meet a religious person who would actually acknowledge that.

Faith and reason, religion and science, at their healthiest are both driven by honesty and humility. Not as “fronts” for our frailties.

Being created in the Divine Image means that we need to rise to our higher calling, and not drag it down into our shortcomings. Our Divine nature behooves us to use all our resources, including our minds and curiosity, to probe, explore, analyze and understand the mysteries of the universe, with open mindedness and sober introspection.

There’s something inside of us humans that senses with resonating certainty, that, as much as contemporary science argues otherwise, we are not merely billion year old bacteria, which have randomly evolved into the intelligent creatures that we are. We sense that we have a soul and a higher calling. We feel, some times more than others, that there is purpose to our lives, and we understand that our book has an Author.

Ironically, it may be true faith that will help us all get back to objective inquiry, with no dogma and obstinacy.

Yes, the debate rages on, “dressed up” in either “scientific inquiry” or “irrational faith.”

Perhaps the time has come to be honest, and rephrase the debate so that it accurately reflects the real issue:

Are we or are we not responsible to a Creator?

With all the talk about the environmental protection, who was the first to actually celebrate nature with a special holiday?

Long before Earth Day and Arbor Day, the Jewish calendar honors Tu B’Shevat, the 15th of Shevat as the day that marks the beginning of a “New Year for Trees.” This is the season in which the earliest-blooming trees in the Land of Israel emerge from their winter sleep and begin a new fruit-bearing cycle.

We observe Tu B’Shevat by eating fruit, particularly from the kinds that are singled out by the Torah in its praise of the bounty of the Holy Land: grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives and dates. On this day we remember that “Man is a tree of the field” (Deuteronomy 20:19) and reflect on the lessons we can derive from our botanical analogue.

Appreciating the Divine in everything around us – especially the habitat that provides us sustenance and allows us to live – is the essence of the entire purpose of existence.

Rabbi Joseph Isaac writes in his memoirs: One day in the summer of 1896, my father took me for a walk in the fields. The crops were ripening. A light breeze moved through the sheaves, eras of corn nodded and whispered to each other. My father said to me: “see my son – Divinity! Each movement of every ear of corn, and of every tuft of grass, was anticipated in the principal thought of the cosmic primordial man.” (to simplify, maybe we should just say: is part of G-d’s master plan).

We had gone into the forest, and I, absorbed in our conversation, stirred by the sound of my father’s voice and the purity of his words, had distractedly broken off a leaf from a tree and was holding it in my hand, tearing it to bits and dropping the pieces to the ground.

My father said: ‘The holy Ari used to say, apart from the fact that every leaf of a tree is a creature that has in it divine life, and was created by G-d for some predesigned purpose, there is also contained in every leaf a spark of some soul that has descended to this world in order to be redeemed.

“And now, regard how careful a man must be in this world, whether awake or asleep. See, even now, as we were speaking about divine providence, you absentmindedly plucked a leaf , held it in your hand, tore it into little pieces, and scattered the pieces to the ground. Should one regard the G-d’s creations so lightly? The Creator wrought this creation too for some purpose, there is divine life in it. Within its own body is contained its own life. In what way is the ‘I’ in the leaf less than your ‘I?’ Yes, there is a great difference. The leaf is in the category of the vegetative world, and you in the category of the ‘human.’ But everything created has its own end, and its divine obligation to accomplish something in the world.”

Sensitivity is not arbitrary. Some of us are sensitive only to certain people and at certain times. It is not uncommon to find executive sharks that are merciless in their business dealings, while behaving like gentle lambs with their own children and families. Not to be outdone, there is also the parent that for some reason demonstrates more love to strangers than to his or her own children. Then, there is “seasonal” sensitivity, displayed only at particular moments, when convenient or just at the whim and mood of the bestower happening to be in a benevolent frame of mind.

Any sensitivity, especially in our harsh world, is always welcome. But true sensitivity is one that is not compartmentalized. Because sensitivity driven by personal interest can, and inevitably will, always be arbitrary. If you are sensitive on your own terms, then who is to say when those terms will dictate turning against a loved one? If you are insensitive to some people or in some situations and times, you ultimately will be – if and when it suits you – insensitive to other people, situations and times.

During World War II unspeakable evil was perpetrated against humans while the same barbarians – no need to mention them by name – legislated extreme measures of empathy to… dogs and cats.

Sensitivity is a state of being, not an act. A noun, not a verb. A sensitive person is sensitive all the time (even asleep), to all people and in all situations.

Man is a tree of the field. The New Year of Trees makes us aware of our intimate dependence and integral connection with the “field” (world) in which we live. And thus, the profound sensitivity to all that grows and all that breathes around us.

The only reason, the Torah teaches, we may consume or use elements of nature for our personal needs, is not because we have a right to them, but because we have the responsibility and privilege to refine, elevate and perfect the environment. We have this right only when we use nature for positive and constructive ends, to civilize and enhance the world, morally and ethically, for good and holy purposes. If we don’t, we do not have the right to even touch any part of the environment.

Man is a tree of the field. The New Year of Trees teaches us that life consists of two elements: Man and the field (universe). Man is the subject. The universe is the object. A human being takes an object of the universe, say an apple off a tree, and eats it. He can use the energy from this food for destructive purposes; he can use it neutrally, for optional acts; or—and this is its purpose—use it towards constructive ends. We have the power and dominance over nature; we have the ability to destroy it, maintain its neutral state, or elevate it.

Our sages state two reasons why the human, the crown jewel of creation, was created last, after all other creatures. One reason is because you first set the table and then invite your special guest to dine. The second reason, which seems to contradict the first, is that if the human being misbehaves and transgresses, he is told that even the lowly insect preceded his creation. How do we reconcile the two? Depending on our own behavior, we determine which one we are: the special guest or inferior to the insect. The human race was given free choice. As the universe’s crown jewel, we can either elevate the universe by lifting our environment to a greater place; or if we are destructive, and act not in synch with the Engineer’s plans, then, as the Chassidic saying goes, the “cobblestones cry out: what right do you have to walk on me?” We have become inferior even to an insect, which has not digressed from its purpose.

We are all responsible for the environment around us. We have no right to hurt or damage any object in this universe, from the largest animal to the smallest insect, from the mammoth to the microscopic components of nature. Everything was created for a purpose and we are responsible to care for and protect every part of existence, whether it is human, animal, vegetable or mineral. Moreover, we are responsible to help it reach its fullest potential in realizing the purpose of its creation.

Responsibility for our universe is great gift. It is the gift of being active participants in the dynamic unfolding of the world’s destiny.

So we have one day in the year when we are asked to think not about ourselves but about the trees and vegetation around us. This requires humility and discipline. With all our preoccupations, it may seem trivial to “stop and smell the roses,” but in return we develop a deeper sensitivity to every thing, every one and every moment – even to ourselves.

Man is a tree of the field. Appreciating the environment is not merely a crusade and another cause; it reflects awareness of the Divine in all. In makes us more cognizant of every detail in life. How one virtuous deed affects the delicate balance on which the fate of the world hangs. You can have a positive impact on every person you meet and on every space you travel through. One act can save a life, and a life is an entire universe.

In our complicated and troubling world – a spiraling economy, leaderless leaders, global anxiety, a nervous sense of inevitability – it’s good to step back and remember our symbiotic relationship with nature; our roots embedded in the fields of earth. We must take responsibility for each other. We are all that we have. And G-d.

It can be very healing to lift our eyes to heaven, look at the trees around us, peer inside the tree that is man, and bid them a Happy New Year.

Your Unshakable Essence

Are you indecisive? Do you vacillate? Are there important decisions in your life that you are postponing – and with very good excuses which you may rationalize as “reasons”?

None of us are immune from inertia. As mere mortals we have our different fears and insecurities. Mood swings and circumstances don’t help. Often, life’s overbearing pressures simply wear us down, leaving us with little strength to break out of patterns and “make a move.” The silent, lethargic power of habit should never be underestimated.

And even when you finally make a “decision” to move, how often does that decision turn into an extended process that, years later, still awaits resolution? It’s one thing to be inspired; it’s quite another to maintain and implement the inspiration.

As we dig deeper into the psyche, this weakness exposes a more fundamental human flaw: Do we have unwavering identities, or are we products of the changing winds around us?

The only thing consistent about me, a friend jokes, is that I am inconsistent. Or as another poet put it, the only thing we knew for sure about Johnny was that his name was not Johnny.

And finally, this brings us, no doubt, to the biggest issue of all: Commitment. Are we able to remain committed – and when I say committed, I mean real, unconditional, commitment – to someone, to a cause, to ourselves, to anything? Is there anything that you are absolutely certain of? Or are we doomed to limited and conditional relationships, which change like the weather, or a bit less often?

Justified or not, human beings are creatures of change and instruments of habit. No matter how much we seem to try, our past haunts our future, and even when we resolve to chart a new course and establish a true commitment, the ever-changing human vacillator constantly shifts like a ticking clock.

That’s why we humans have created the pressures of deadlines and cut-off points, to force us to act and arrive at a resolution.

Now, you may be wondering: Who really cares if I don’t have a solid connection and absolute commitment in my life? Moreover, I am unconditionally committed to myself, to making money and satisfying my needs. Beyond that, what else is there?

Yet, there is a nagging voice inside each of us that doesn’t quite feel comfortable with that last statement. (Not to mention, that commitment to one’s need is hardly absolute; it changes in direct proportion to the immediate need).

First of all, there is love – the need to give and receive love. Is there anyone out there that actually feels that it’s quite alright if our mothers and fathers loved us conditionally? Is there a child on this earth that does not deserve to be nurtured and cared for, with no strings attached and no limits? And can we honestly say that when we are deprived of such absolute love, we will not be dramatically affected for the rest of our lives?

Every building must have a solid foundation to stand upon. How much more so the fragile human being, who is subject to the emotional forces of life (our own shifting emotions and those of others)? If our foundation totters, the entire structure is at risk.

Giving love, like receiving it, also demands an element of unwavering commitment. True love is not about taking, but about giving. A mother that stays awake all night with her child in pain does so not because the child cares for her and, therefore, it’s “worth the investment.” Love is unconditional, absolute and forever.

Then there is the matter of transcendence. We all, some more often than others, have ideals and dreams that we absolutely believe in. Even if some of us don’t feel it, we identify with the concept – and the idea resonates with us. We also admire those non-conformists, who did not take no for an answer, and stayed with their dreams, and innovated – and changed the world in the process.

Where does such certainty come from? And can we all access it?

The answer is given to us in – what may seem to some, a surprising place – a Chassidic discourse, studied by many people during this time of year.

Over sixty-years-ago today (the 10^th day of the Hebrew month of Shevat 1950) my mentor’s mentor (The Rebbe’s Rebbe) ascended on high. His name: Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, the sixth Chabad Rebbe. The last publication printed in his lifetime was a Chassidic discourse issued for study that very day. The discourse, titled Basi L’Gani, Come to my Garden (a verse in Song of Songs), consists of twenty chapters.

When Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak’s son-in-law, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, assumed leadership of the movement, he began his first discourse with the same verse, and elucidated on the original discourse. Every year hence, on this day, Yud Shevat, the Rebbe would focus, in consecutive order, on another one of the twenty chapters of the discourse, in 1952 – chapter two, 1953 – chapter three, concluding with chapter twenty in 1970. Then he began the order again. Based on this cycle, this year, 2008 (5768), corresponds to the 18^th chapter of Basi L’Gani.

What is the theme of chapter eighteen? You guessed it: Unwavering fortitude and commitment in face of the ever-changing human personality.

Esoteric in tone, this chapter, when deciphered, is as practical and relevant as any message you will ever hear.

Briefly, the chapter discusses two states of Divine energy. Sometimes we find that G-d has, so to speak, a “change of mind,” as when “G-d regretted that He had made man on earth, I will obliterate humanity” (Genesis 6:5-6), and then again, “G-d smelled the appeasing fragrance, and G-d said… ‘I will never again strike down all life as I have just done’” (8:21). Seemingly contradicting this is another verse: “the Eternal One of Israel will not lie nor change His mind, for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (Samuel I 15:29).

Explains the Rebbe: As the Divine manifests in the “image of man” and the structure of existence, there are changes corresponding to the shifting forces in existence. But the Essence of the Divine is beyond this structure. This level is unwavering and absolute, unaffected by any change.

The human soul too contains both these dimensions: Areas in life where one is affected by and undergoes constant changes. But then at the core of your soul, we have an unwavering power to overcome every challenge.

The soul accesses this absolute power through the battle against the adversarial forces of life. When we fight to live virtuous lives in a corrupt world, when we stand up for justice and morality, when we combat selfishness, our own or others, this battle evokes the deepest Divine, spiritual resources.

As demonstrated with the example of an actual war: When a leader is threatened and goes to battle, the drive of victory causes him to open up all his most precious treasures and resources, ones that have never before been seen, in order to overcome every challenge.

The challenges of life, thus, become catalysts that detonate the deepest resources within us and within the Divine. The greater the adversary, the more powerful are the forces of certainty we awaken and the more determined we are to succeed.

Complacency is the root of much uncertainty. By contrast, when we feel that our spiritual identity is threatened and we fear betraying our own highest aspirations, this stimulates new energies and will power, which access the unshakeable core of the soul rooted in the unwavering Essence of the Divine.

So the secret to access inner strength and resolve is by looking at our own doubts and procrastination as an “enemy.” Define the enemy and then muster up all your inner strengths to go into battle. Your inner soul, fed by the indomitable Divine, will carry you.

May this be the only battles we ever fight.