“These are the accounts” — In this week’s Torah portion we read about Moses’ accounting for the contributions made to the Temple. Because of its great power and all its potential for use or misuse, scrupulous accountability is necessary when dealing with finances. Even the great Moses, the most trustworthy servant of G-d, demonstrates detailed accountability for all the Temple contributions, especially considering that they were public funds. How much more so the rest of us.

Here is part three of a paper on the power of wealth.

WHAT IS THE SOUL OF MONEY?

In order to probe the root of wealth, it is essential to ask some fundamental questions: Why does wealth wield such power? What lies at the heart and soul of money? And finally, how do we address Korach’s concerns that can guarantee a system where individual power is not abused, and wealth is used in its healthy context?

Fundamental to Torah thought, is the essential perspective that every physical entity in the universe has a spiritual counterpart, or better yet, a ‘soul,’ an internal energy that shapes and vivifies each respective fiber of existence. [22] The physical is merely a shell, that contains within it spiritual energy, which when manifested on the physical plane takes on the shape of this respective object.

What the Talmud (the ‘body’ of Torah [23] ) teaches us about the ‘body’ and nature of wealth, Kabbalah and Chassidus (the ‘soul’ of Torah) teaches us about the ‘soul’ of wealth.

The Tanya teaches us [24] that wealth is “chayei nafsho,” ‘soul-life-energy.’ [25] In explaining the power of the mitzvah of charity (which will be discussed later), the Tanya explains:

[Charity] “which a person gives out of the toil of his hands, all the strength of his vital soul and energy is invested and embodied in the execution of his work or occupation by which he earned the money; when he gives it for charity, his whole energy ascends to G-d. Even where one does not depend on his toil for a livelihood, nevertheless since with this money he could have purchased necessities of life, hence he is giving his soul’s life to G-d.”

Because we invest so much of our energy into making money, it represents the very energy of life (as we see it).

Furthermore, our wealth reflects the unique allotment of “divine energy” given to each of us. Commenting on the Talmudic statement, “Torah is concerned over one’s wealth”: [26] the Baal Shem Tov (founder of the Chassidic movement) [27] explains: Within each person’s possessions, wealth and property lie divine spiritual ‘sparks’ that relate to the very root of his soul. These ‘sparks’ are the vitality that sustains each physical entity. It would not exist without the Divine energy within, which gives it its reason for being. Everything that comes a person’s way – their wealth, possessions, food, clothing and property – is a Providential indication that these sparks relate to the person’s soul. In this way, each individual is allocated an allotment of spiritual divine sparks, in order for him to elevate these sparks. Proper use of this wealth, channels its energy toward a higher purpose, redeeming and elevating these sparks, thus actualizing the intended purpose of this wealth, and realizing the mission of you’re the person’s soul, and all the ‘sparks’ allocated to it. [28]

The Baal Shem Tov goes a step farther: When one craves a material delight, even food and drink, it is actually ones soul craving and desiring the divine energy (spiritual sparks) within these items. [29] People’s particular tastes and preferences are determined by the difference of their souls and the ‘sparks’ they are drawn to. [30]

Being that wealth is “soul energy” because it encompasses all mans’ energy (as Tanya explains), therefore it contains all the ‘sparks’ allocated to us, and thus has special value, more than the individual sparks in specific areas of our lives. [31]

This perspective on wealth throws light on the odd Talmudic statement, that Rebbe honored the wealthy. [32] At first perusal this seems strange. Was this great sage swayed by wealth? Are the poor less deserving of honor than the rich?

Everything a person owns is a G-d-given opportunity for him to become a finer person and to serve in a better way. Wealth is a sign of greater opportunity. It indicates that G-d entrusted this wealthy person with additional resources to perfect himself and the world around him. And gave him the ability to make that choice.

But every opportunity is also a challenge. Especially when it comes to personal wealth and success, a person has the tendency to feel that “my success is due to me and me alone – it is my intelligence and strengths that brought me this wealth.” This is the challenge of wealth, and a serious challenge it is: To not be deceived by your own ego that you are self made and self contained and your successes are due solely to your own initiatives and abilities.

The challenge is to recognize that “it was not my own strength and personal power that brought me all this prosperity. Remember that it is G-d who gives you the power to become prosperous.” [33]

The true approach to earning a living is recognizing that one’s sustenance comes from G-d, and no amount of effort and ingenuity on ones part will increase it in the slightest. Why, then, work for a living at all? Why need the laborer toil, the artisan create and the businessman deal if, in any case, G-d will supply them with what they have been assigned? Because G-d has commanded us to fashion a “vessel” through which He then promises to channel His blessings – “G-d shall bless you in all that you shall do.” Our workday efforts, then, are nothing more than a formality, a natural “front” for a supernatural process. G-d provides our needs, without regard to such natural criteria as a person’s expertise, capital and enterprise. On the other hand, G-d insists on this formality, promising the bestowal of his blessing only when man creates the vessel enabled by his natural talents and resources.

These are the economics of faith.

At first glance, it may seem that there is little practical difference between this approach and the conventional approach that “my power and my physical might have generated this fortune.” Both agree that to earn a living one must utilize, to the utmost, the natural tools at one’s disposal, whether it is because these natural tools actually generate one’s income or because they are needed as a “vessel” to receive a unilateral gift from Above. In truth, however, these two approaches result in radically different behaviors in work, business and money management.

What happens, for example, when a business opportunity comes your way that may be cutting ethical corners or going against your religious beliefs, but it will increase revenue? This creates the dilemma of having to choose between your “religious beliefs” and your financial betterment. On the other hand, one who knows that his shop, and all the time and toil invested in it, is only a channel for G-d’s blessing, understands the ludicrousy in expanding the channel in a manner that violates the will of the supernal provider. This would be comparable to reducing the fuel supply of a power plant in order to allocate funds for the construction of additional power lines, in the hope that this would increase the net output of the plant. Certainly, it is important to put up power lines; without them, the energy produced by the plant wouldn’t reach its intended destination. But simply pulling more lines from the plant will not generate more power, especially if such activity is to the detriment of the power’s source. Thus, to violate any divine command (such as the prohibitions against stealing, lying, dealing in merchandise that causes physical or moral harm to its consumers, etc.) to increase one’s income is not only detrimental to one’s spiritual health — it’s also bad business sense.

A marked difference between these two approaches is how a person views his contributions to charity. From the conventional perspective, money given to charity represents a reduction in one’s financial resources. A person may still be moved to give out of compassion, duty or guilt; but he will weigh each dollar against the sacrifice it involves, against what he is “giving up” in order to give. On the other hand, to a person who believes that G-d’s blessing is the ultimate and only source of wealth, charity is an investment. Indeed, to give to charity is far more effective an investment than any business initiative: the latter only serves to construct the channel (the nature of which in no way determines how much will be funneled through it), while the former stimulates the source, as per the divine promise/command, “tithe, so that you may prosper.” [34] To such a person, it is also obvious that he will not ”save” anything by disregarding the divine imperative to aid a fellow in need.

Finally, these two approaches differ in the extent of their devotion to the building of a career or business. True, both concur that the natural effort must be made, that one must utilize, to the utmost, the tools at one’s disposal to earn a living. But what exactly does “utilizing to the utmost” mean? To the person who sees his career or business as the source of his income, “the utmost” is an open-ended parameter: the greater one’s efforts, the greater one’s success, or, at least, the greater one’s chances for success. Eight daily hours become 10 become 12 become 14. Second and third jobs are assumed to cover all possibilities. Plans and anxieties invade every waking (and non-waking) thought.

On the other hand, when a person sees his career or business as nothing more than a vessel constructed at G-d’s behest, “the utmost” is the utmost that G-d requires. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and effort. And what G-d requires is that we create a natural framework that would suffice as the receptacle for our most basic needs. Should He desire to grant us more than our most basic needs, He will do so —within that framework. Going to greater lengths will not increase the chances of this happening –on the contrary, it can only decrease them, by impinging on those pursuits and activities (prayer, Torah study, observance of mitzvoth) that relate directly to the source of all blessing.

This is the challenge of wealth and the meaning of charity. To recognize that though your work and effort was necessary to achieve this wealth, it is ultimately G-d’s blessing that “makes you wealthy”. [35] And this recognition is actualized by understanding the purpose of G-d blessing you – in order that you use your wealth for a greater cause and to help others.

Rebbe therefore honored the wealthy. He saw their wealth as an indication of their additional G-d-given opportunities. He honored them because G-d honored them by bestowing upon then this wealth and entrusting them with its distribution to the needy. He respected their unique challenge to not be distracted by their wealth and to utilize it for good. Wealth is G-d’s vote of confidence in the wealthy person that he will overcome the challenge and utilize his special gifts as an opportunity to utilize the wealth for a greater purpose than selfish gain, and to give and help others.

According to this ‘inner/soul’ understanding of wealth, we can appreciate the root of wealth’s power and its ability to consume us – both ourselves and others. It is the Divine energy that lies embedded in wealth that gives it its power.

THE POWER OF CHARITY

Indeed, according to the Tanya, the power of wealth embodies the sheer power of this material universe and all it contains, and thus offers us the greatest opportunity to transform the world through our monetary charity.

The Tanya explains that the entire purpose of existence (including the higher sublime realms) is to spiritualize the material world, to transform it into a “home for G-d.” Each of us does so by utilizing our “corner” of this Earth and all we were blessed with – our wealth and possessions – toward elevating the ‘sparks’ within and thus revealing the true nature of existence. We take our part of the material world and instead of being distracted and using it solely for personal gain, we recognize that it is a shell, a vehicle and means for spiritual expression, a channel for a higher good.

Nowhere is this more powerfully expressed than in the act of charity. In all other mitzvot “only one faculty of the soul is embodied, and than only at the time of the performance of the precept, whilst in the case of charity…all the strength of his soul is embodied…”

Virtuous acts are indeed good, and they elevate the soul, but giving money to charity is the most powerful way to spiritualize the material, for it means giving a piece of everything that we are – our abilities, our efforts, our ambitions, our compassion. Charity relieves the inherent tension between matter and spirit by freeing the material world from its self absorbing tentacles, and allowing us to see within and above. Charity does not destroy or annihilate the selfishness of wealth and the material universe but rather transforms it into a channel for higher divine energy. Charity in its broadest sense is taking our physical corner of world and transforming it into a home for G-d.

Charity is thus the greatest gift G-d bestowed upon us: the gift of giving.

The Midrash relates a dialogue between the psalmist and G-d: Said King David to the Almighty: “Master of the Universe! Why don’t you balance Your world and make equal the rich and the poor? Replied G-d: “If such were the case, ‘Who shall keep kindness and truth?’ If all were rich or all were poor, how would there be an opportunity for human kindness?” [36]

This offers us a radically different view on the uneven distribution of wealth and the diversity of economic classes:  It is not merely a result of circumstances, opportunities or the efforts of our work; it is a result of G-d giving the gift of wealth and the opportunity to be wise in knowing how to use it to refine this material world and fulfill our mission in life. Just as G-d continues to give — every fraction of time, every day on earth  — charity allows us to give, thus becoming G-d-like ourselves.

Indeed, the wealth we share is not truly ours; it is something that G-d has loaned us for our time on Earth, [37] in order to allow us the opportunity to be generous and introduce chesed into the world. Those who have been blessed with more wealth, then, are those who have been blessed by G-d with the opportunity and privilege to be more giving, to be more G-d-like. Philanthropy is not only about helping others, but recognizing that they are helping you. You realize that this additional wealth is really not yours but was given to you in order that you have the gift of being able to give and be generous, which enriches your entire life.

Thus, charity must be given with humility. If a wealthy person gives arrogantly, thinking that he is doing a great favor, he is sadly mistaken: the favor is being done to him.  Recognizing this fact transforms the act of charity and makes it infinitely more compelling.

The universe as an intricate system of give and take; our entire existence revolves around this relationship. Just as plants, for instance, need the carbon dioxide that humans exhale, humans need the oxygen that plants produce.  Charity is yet one more expression of this pattern:  the giver and the receiver need one another.  “More than the rich man does for the pauper,” say the sages, “the pauper does for the rich man”. [38] Through charity, we introduce unity into a diverse world.

On its own, wealth can be a curse. By putting wealth in perspective, and recognizing why it was given to us, it becomes a blessing instead of a curse.  And by using our wealth for charitable and philanthropic purposes, which are ongoing, instead of spending it all on the desire of the moment, our wealth becomes eternal.

Our Calling Today

Many pundits are lauding President Bush’s inaugural address, in which he declared that the “calling of our time” is the advancement of freedom around the world.

But many are also questioning the practical application of this principle, and whether this should be our focus today. Europeans in particular are enraged at America today and it’s cavalier attitude (but that’s another story).

Fareed Zakaria asks in his Newsweek column this week: Is liberty actually the “calling of our time?”

The question is posed as a challenge to President Bush’s words in his inaugural address, that the “best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world… Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security and the calling of our time. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Mr. Zakaria rightfully questions whether, outside of the Middle East, the problem of tyranny is indeed the “calling of our time”? Is it the dominating issue for the world at large today? “Is ending Burmese tyranny the urgent requirement of America’s security? Is battling Cuba’s decrepit regime the calling of our time?”

He argues that today, we live in a world that is mostly free.

“For much of the world, the problem is not the will for democracy but the capacity to build and sustain a stable, effective and decent government… The great challenge today is civil strife, extreme poverty and disease, which overwhelms not only democracy but order itself. It is not that such societies are unconcerned about freedom. Everyone, everywhere, would choose to control his own destiny. But this does not mean as much when the basic order that precedes civilized life is threatened, and disease and death are the most pressing daily concern. Much of Africa is reasonably free, holds elections and is far more open than ever before. The great challenge in, say, Senegal and Namibia is not freedom but an effective state. The author of American liberty, James Madison, wrote in The Federalist papers that ‘in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.’ Order and then liberty.”

So, while the call for global freedom is a noble, visionary goal, Mr. Zakaria makes the case that America cannot be satisfied with the virtues of its grand goals, but it must also provide a practical plan how to implement freedom in a workable system of government.

It’s actually a fascinating question: Which comes first – freedom or organization? Marx, for instance, argued that first order would have to be imposed to control the transition from the “capitalist” model of private ownership and class struggles to the “socialist” revolution of equality, which would emancipate the masses.

In theory this sounds logical. Which is why socialism initially attracted so many progressive thinkers. However, in practice those imposing order became the worst abusers of power and savagely abolished all basic human freedoms – all in the name of some “future” vision of equality.

On the other hand, Mr. Zakaria’s argument seems to be equally legitimate: How does freedom help people if they are plagued by poverty, disease and corruption? Freedom must come together with a system of implementation.

Seems like an unsolvable conundrum.

But not quite.

The logical thing to do is to retrace the steps to the earliest roots of freedom and the first establishment of a government that honors the individual rights of all its citizens.

That root goes back 3317 years ago to Sinai (which President Bush actually credited in his speech). At Sinai the human race received its mandate how to build a civilized world.

Two major revolutions took place at Sinai.

First and foremost Sinai declared that G-d gave us freedom. The Ten Commandments begin with the statement: “I am your G-d who delivered you from [the bondage in] Egypt.” The sages explain that Egypt in Hebrew (Miztrayim) refers to all forms of slavery and confinement, anything that inhibits human freedom.

Then the remaining nine Commandments declared at Sinai define the system that we must build to maintain our freedom and construct a civilized universe (“Thou shall not murder,” “Thou shall not steal,” etc.)

The opening of the Bible (Torah) formalized at Sinai states that the human being was created in the Divine Image. By this virtue each of us has unalienable rights. As Mr. Bush also made reference to in his talk: “From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth.”

Once that axiom is in place then we have the solid foundation upon which all law and order stands: The Divine authority that has endowed us all with fundamental freedom and with a moral system by which to live.

Take away the bedrock of the first commandment, all else inevitably falls. With no Creator imbuing us with absolute freedom and defining for us a blueprint for life, all morality becomes arbitrary and relative. Case in point: The Nazis defied “though shall not murder” only because they first defied the first commandment of accepting G-d Who gave us all life and freedom. Instead, they chose to “play G-d” and arbitrarily decide who has a right to live and who not.

That is the first Sinai revolution: The bestowal of freedom on all human beings.

To appreciate this revolutionary message one need only look at human history: Until a few hundred years ago basic human rights that we take today for granted simply were not respected in virtually every country in the world! Monarchs, despots, religious authorities ruled in totalitarian regimes that controlled every aspect of their subjects’ lives.

Notwithstanding all history’s “growing pains,” at Sinai the universe received the mandate of freedom and the blueprint of civilization. 3317 years ago Sinai set in motion a series of events that would change the world forever, and continues to impact our lives today.

It would take three millennia before Sinai would begin to breed countries that would embrace its message in their system of government. In the 18^th century, the United States as well as many European countries, began to champion the fundamental principles of Sinai: All people are created equal with inalienable rights and freedoms.

In the last three centuries freedom has continued to spread, to the point as Mr. Zakaria cites in his article, that “in 1972, when Freedom House began its practice of ranking countries on a scale of free and unfree, it placed 54 (of the world’s 149) in the unfree category, with scores of 6 or more (with 7 being the most unfree). Today only 25 of the world’s 192 countries score 6 or higher.”

The second revolution that took place at Sinai was even greater than the first:

Before Sinai there was an impenetrable rift between heaven and earth, between matter and spirit. An invisible wall separated between the transcendental and the material. A decree, a schism separated between above and below. “That which was above could not descend below, and that which was below could not ascend above.”

At Sinai the world changed. Heaven was unplugged. Sinai opened a door, never again to be closed, that allows mortals in a material world to become Divine. For the first time the human race was given the opportunity to bridge heaven and earth – to fuse spirit and matter. It gave us the power to spiritualize the material, and to make our lives sacred, not just ethical.

This was no small event.

Philosophers, thinkers, theologians and lay people have all always asked the eternal question: How high can a human being reach? Are we humans just sophisticated beasts, with limited potential? Can we ever reach heaven and beyond or bring heaven down to earth? Can we integrate spirituality into our material lives? Can we fuse the finite and the infinite?

The fact is that matter and spirit are in a perpetual struggle. Narcissism, greed, corruption are staples of life. When we look at ourselves each of us knows that we often feel that “I exist and nothing else,” to the detriment of others. When this feeling becomes extreme it can destroy lives of those around us. On the other hand, we also have a spirit inside of us. We have the power to live noble lives, filled with dignity and selflessness.

So we have an inevitable clash. Matter by its very nature is selfish. Spirit is selfless. No wonder that people have always speculated whether these two worlds can meet, let alone merge.

In general we find two approaches evolving in history: Asceticism and immersion. One states that in order to experience spirit we must separate ourselves from the material tentacles of life, and “climb the mountain” to meditate and become absorbed in a higher reality. Basically, one must deny the material life. An extreme version of this would be the ascetic life. To achieve the sacred the material life must be compromised. The infinite may be reached, but only by denying the finite.

The other extreme is that we cannot really reach heaven. We must live ethically, build healthy homes and workplaces, and find spirit in limited ways within our limited lives. Because we are essentially mortal creatures, with inherent selfishness or even evil, we cannot expect anything more than the best an earthy creature can achieve. A variation of this includes the ability of achieving salvation but not through our own efforts but by embracing something beyond us. The infinite is not integrated into our own personal lives.

Sinai opened the door of a third option. Sinai created an interface that bridged heaven and earth, giving us the power to integrate matter and spirit, utterly and completely, without compromising one or the other. The finite can become one with the infinite; matter one with spirit; the sacred one with the secular. Briefly, because G-d is neither spirit nor matter, He gave us the power to completely integrate the two; the power to build a material Temple, in which G-d rests.

This third option, however, does not come easily. As limiting as the first two options may be, they seem simpler, while the Sinai option requires a continual straddling of the thin line between matter and spirit.

That is why Sinai came after much hard work, and why it would take thousands of years to begin integrating Sinai’s power into global affairs.

So where do we stand today?

The first revolution of Sinai, the message of freedom, has in the last 300 years finally infiltrated the nations of the world.

But the second revolution, integration of spirit and matter, has yet to take hold—that is on a personal level. In technology, science, medicine and many other fields the last century is witness to unprecedented breakthroughs in the bridge between matter and energy, form and function—between the invisible and the tangible, the invisible forces of quantum particles and the macroscopic universe, between DNA and the body. However, on the personal front—in our psychological lives, our relationships, business and human interactions—we have yet to fund peace between our souls and our bodies, between our transcendental needs and our need to survive.

This struggle between heaven and earth has many manifestations, including the battle that we so often have witnessed between religion and secularism. If you are a firm believer how do you deal with the secular world? According to the two above-mentioned options you either have to wage a holy war against the secular, or your basically embrace the secular with limited sanctity.

Therein lies the essential root of the religious wars waged throughout history. Recognizing secular heresy as an enemy, the Christians and later the Muslims, engaged in aggressive battles with the forces they perceive as threatening.

This is the calling of our times: To embrace the Sinai mandate in its entirety. In addition to Sinai’s message of freedom, we are called on today to integrate into our lives the Sinai system and blueprint for life, namely the universal laws of civilization as they rang out from Sinai.

Its one thing to be free. It’s quite another to use the gift of freedom to live by the Divine standards expected of us. Only then are we truly free, and only then does our freedom realize its potential.

So yes, freedom is the bedrock of our lives. But, as Mr. Zakaria does us the service of pointing out, freedom must be immediately coupled with a practical system of law and order that can be implemented to build the institutions of a democratic state. This system begins with education – educating people not only that they are free and have rights, dignity and indispensable value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth, but that they also have responsibilities to live up to their calling.

Freedom is thus the bedrock of civilization, and personal responsibility, ethical behavior and living virtuously is its structure. One without the other cannot survive. The First Commandment dictates the foundation; the other nine define the structure of our lives.

Our challenge is to translate the Sinai principles into a practical plan that tackles chaos, plague and poverty, and allows for each nation to define the universal laws each according to their own traditions and cultures.

The stage is set. The next move is ours. All that is needed is an unwavering commitment to the Sinai laws of civilization, and a demand—of ourselves and of the entire world—to live up to our calling.

It took 3000 years for Sinai’s clarion of freedom to penetrate the world’s nations. Let’s make sure that we embrace Sinai’s blueprint for life in far lesser time.

Love and Mystique: Ultimate Height and Ultimate Depth

Dear Rabbi J.,

Your article “All This Talk About G-d” moved me deeply. What especially resonated was your point that the onus is upon us to determine our destinies. I found that to be particularly empowering, fostering our human dignity as partners with G-d in the unfolding drama of our lives.

I never saw faith quite that way. Faith for me has always meant our reliance on G-d instead of on man. Your essay made it clear that faith places responsibility on man as much as on G-d, or perhaps even more on man than on G-d. That clearly is a more sophisticated and mature experience of faith: Faith that man has the Divine power to change the world.

However what remains unclear to me is the issue of us accepting G-d on “His terms” instead of our own. It’s true that we must embrace not a G-d defined by our own image but rather G-d as He is (“I Am”) and as he created us in His image. But that means that ultimately our individuality and personality will get annihilated as we adapt to G-d’s reality. Our independent existence seems predicated on the fact that G-d’s existence remains concealed. If G-d’s fundamental truth – a “Reality that must exist, in a non-existential type of existence” as you put it – is revealed, how can there be left any “space” for our inferior, mortal, arbitrary form of being?!

You alluded to this at the end of your article by saying “Don’t be afraid: our terms will not be compromised”, but how is it possible? Simply put we and G-d can’t coexist; It’s either on His terms or on our terms!

Respectfully,

GY

So now to the other side of the coin.

A partnership goes both ways. Just as G-d’s terms need to be appreciated so do our human terms. Every healthy relationship requires a balance between both partners. Since the Divine reality is seemingly diametrically opposite of our human condition, how can we ever have a balanced relationship, without one annihilating the other?

Indeed, mystics have always struggled with the great cosmic dilemma how to reconcile the two realities: The parameters of our defined existence and the boundlessness of the Divine.

One of the ways that this is explained is in the fifteenth chapter of a mystical/Chassidic discourse titled “Come to My Garden” which many people are studying this time of year. In it he discusses the Kabbalistic phrase (in Tikkunei Zohar): “The Divine infinite light extends upward without bounds and downward without end.”

“Downward without end” refers to Divine energy as it extends downward, with innumerable expressions and unlimited revelations in all aspects of existence, even in its lowest forms. “Upward without bounds” refers to the Divine power of concealment, concealment after concealment, elevation after elevation, inverting into His own Essence.

In the words of the Book of Formation: “Ultimate height” and “ultimate depth” (Omek rom and Omek tachat). Just as “ultimate depth” (the revelation and diffusion of Divine energy even in the lowest of levels) is an expression of the Divine’s infinite power, so too is “ultimate height” (the progressive ascent and withdrawal of the Divine energy in the form of self-concealment) an expression of His infinite power.

As they stand within the Essence both these dimensions are all one: The power to reveal and the power to conceal. Yet, from our perspective they are clearly two separate, even opposite experiences.

From these two forms of energy evolve two different states of unity: “Lower unity” (Yechuda Ila’ah) and “higher unity” (Yechuda Tata’ah). Two perspectives: The perspective from below (Daas Tachton) and the one from above (Daas Elyon).

For our perspective below our defined existence is real, and within its parameters we seek the sublime. This revelation originates from the “downward without end” revelation.  From the perspective above the prominent reality is Divine, and it encompasses our existence like water engulfing all that is within. This perspective reflects the “upward without bounds” concealment.

Both perspectives are legitimate and both are necessary.

We can use our human relationships as an example of our relationship with G-d. A thriving relationship between two equals requires two dynamics: Love and mystique, closeness and space. Love is the nurturing warmth that lies at the core of the relationship – the intimacy between both partners. However, this love must be balanced by a measure of space, that respects and protects the individual boundaries of both partners. As close as two people may be they need a sense of mystique and wonder about each other to keep the relationship dynamic.

In our relationship with G-d these two dimensions are called love and awe (ahava and yirah). Love is the feeling of closeness to the Divine, relating to its blessings and revelations in our lives. Awe – bittul – is respect for the inaccessible mystery of the sublime.

The terms of our partnership are such that G-d ensures that our parameters are always preserved, and we must ensure that G-d’s perspective is preserved. Like in any healthy relationship both parties protect each other’s “interests.”

The ultimate goal is the total integration and fusion of both realities and both dimensions of “unity,” the lower and the higher.

How is it possible that these two realities can even co-exist let alone become one and the same without compromising each other? The explanation is complex and is discussed in many mystical texts. Briefly the answer requires us once again to get beyond and transcend our linear way of thinking, and appreciate that the distinction of the unity and perspective above and below only exists in the realms of “above” and “below,” where these respective definitions dominate. Their dichotomy is only in our perception.

However, from the perspective of the true undefined Essence, “I am who I am” non-existential reality, both states of being are equally distant and inclusive; both are merely expressions of the same One Reality. This undefined state cannot be defined in any fashion, not even by the word “undefined.” It therefore includes and encompasses the defined and the undefined, existence and non-existence, the higher unity and the lower unity, matter and spirit, all as one.

But for us to be able to contain this all encompassing reality we need to first travel through the lower levels, slowly climbing the ladder, step by step, gradually acclimating ourselves to integrate the deeper and the deepest states of being.

The primary analogy used to explain the process is that of teacher and student. The teacher knows that the student has a less developed intellect, and that if he presents a concept on the level of his own comprehension, the student will only be confused.  To introduce a new idea to the student, he conceals the full intensity of the concept, he condenses it and uses metaphors or parables to bring it within the student’s grasp.

This concealment is not meant to separate the teacher and student, but to bring them together in a unity that does not compromise either of them.  For the teacher, the complexity of the concept itself remains intact in his mind even though he has expressed it in a simpler metaphor; he perceives it from the “inside out.” The student, meanwhile, gains access to a new concept in a language that he is prepared to understand; he begins to relate to the concept from the “outside in.”  The “inward” journey from metaphor to concept has begun.  The concept grows and becomes integrated in the student’s mind until he or she ultimately understands the original concept just as it exists in the mind of the teacher.

The same is with our relationship with the Divine. Initially we begin with a limited perspective on reality. But in time we have the ability, just like the student, to gain knowledge of our universe step-by-step, metaphor-by-metaphor.  Our perception of the “light” continues to be heightened until we ultimately achieve the perspective of the Cosmic teacher.

Just as the relationship between a teacher and student requires a delicate balance of closeness and respect, of love and awe, we must strive for a similar balance in our relationship with G-d.  This creates a healthy tension, forcing us to separate the finite from the infinite, to differentiate between our limited worldly reality and G-d’s absolute reality. The very act of recognizing this distance allows us to begin uniting the two realities.

And we don’t come unarmed. Being created in the Divine Image, we contain within our beings an integral sense of the Divine. We can naturally detect and recognize undefined.

The undefined essence of “I am who I am” resonates for us, because we have a part of that consciousness in the very fiber of our beings. We therefore have the ability to transcend linear thought and relate to the circular states of higher consciousness.

Previously I discussed that our primary concern in our partnership with G-d should be: Our role in the relationship. Our focus should maturely be on our own personal accountability. However, that does not preclude G-d’s accountability for His side of the deal.

Here’s a telling story that beautifully captures this idea. The Baal Shem Tov once sent his students to observe a local innkeeper as part of their preparation work for Rosh Hashana. The students dutifully checked into the inn. Initially they observed nothing remarkable. After saying the Saturday night Selichot (special penitential prayers recited before the New Year), they went to sleep, only to be awakened by the innkeeper moving about in the lobby. They tip-toed out of their rooms to find the innkeeper opening up a cabinet and removed two big ledgers.

From one ledger he proceeded to read all his sins of the past year: he confessed that he was insensitive to his family, that he didn’t fulfill all his obligations to his community, that he didn’t study enough Torah, he once came late to prayers, etc. Then he opened the second ledger, saying to G-d, “These are my failings, now here’s what You didn’t do … I asked for a better living wage this year and you didn’t give it to me. My wife is still ill. My children need shoes. The cow stopped giving milk…”

In the end he concluded, “Look, I didn’t live up to my obligations and You didn’t live up to Yours. So let’s call it even. I’ll close my book, You’ll close Your book, and we’ll start a new year again with a clean slate.”

The relationship between us and G-d is a partnership. When G-d created human beings in His image, He invested something Divine in us. There is a partnership between us and Him to perfect the world.

G-d founded a business, and said to us: “I am the investor, but you stand behind the counter.”

Partners are accountable to each other. We can call G-d to accountability but we must equally know that we are being called upon to know how we are caring for His investment in us.

Before we confront our partner G-d it would be wise to do our part of the “deal” and show the complete effort we made. Then we can come well armed to our partner and challenge Him to reciprocate.

*   *   *

The two states of being – defined and undefined – are actually the central theme of this week’s Torah portion, in which we read about the parting of the Re(e)d Sea, and the song of praise which this great event evoked.

Our sages tell us that miracles do not happen in vain. This raises the big question regarding the parting of the sea:  Why the need for such a bizarre miracle? Indeed, there is no sea that separates between Egypt and Israel, so there was no need to part the sea for the Jews to make their way to the Promised Land. G-d had to actually take them on a detour to lead them to the sea, so that the parting could take place!

The Midrash goes a step further. Not only the Red Sea but all the seas and water bodies in the world parted at that very moment!  What is the significance of this split?

Indeed, the Talmud states that upon creating the sea G-d made a condition with it that it would part when called upon in the future, when the Jews left Egypt. Why the need for this condition?

The mystics answer all these questions in one fell swoop. Land and sea represent two realities – two forms of consciousness: The “revealed worlds” of dry land are our conscious experiences. The “hidden worlds” of the sea are our unconscious experiences. In truth these two states are one seamless whole. Thus, in the beginning of time all Earth was submerged in water, as each of us (the universe in microcosm) begins our life submerged in the embryonic fluids of our mothers’ wombs. Then, a parting took place – a parting that separated between “land” consciousness and water consciousness. The boundaries between land and sea were set in place (see Tsunami).

This division is actually only from our perspective. If you think about it, all land on Earth is actually an island jutting out of water. 75% of the globe is covered with water, leaving 25% uncovered. The same is true of the microcosm: Two thirds of the body is made up of water. Our conscious minds are just a “tip of the iceberg” (no pun intended) jutting out of our unconscious.

Yet a deep separation between land and water define our reality. We cannot see behind the curtain dividing our conscious and unconscious.

But this separation is not airtight. At the outset of creation, when G-d separated between land and sea, He did so on the condition that the sea would always remember that it would one day part and allow man to walk through its depths as we walk on land.

The parting of the sea – in which “water was transformed into land” (Hofach yom l’yabosho) – was a one-time in history demonstration of the naked truth: That sea and land are two dimensions of one reality.

The window opened up at that point, as a preparation to Sinai when the rift was bridged between spirit and matter. Until Sinai a decree dictated a “line in the sand,” which stated, “that which is above shall not come below, and that which is below shall not ascend above.”

This is also the reason that the people sang praise following the parting of the sea: Song is the language of the sea. Conventional speech (“land language”) consists of staccato-like fragments of disconnected words, separated by spaces and breaths, combining together to express an idea. Melody flows like water in one seamless stream.

The parting of the sea – an integral part of the sea’ nature from its inception – paved the way so that today we have the power to sing, the power to unite what is above and what is below, in one harmonious flow.

As we enter Shabbat Shirah – the Shabbat of Song – may we have much to sing about.

And may we sing away.

A famous theologian would challenge his students with the following question: Where do we find that G-d defied His own cardinal commandment?

Answer: When G-d created man in His own Divine Image He defied the second of the Ten Commandments “You shall not make a carved image or any likeness of that which is in the heavens above.”

A true conundrum if you ever heard one.

This story came to my mind in the face of all this recent talk about G-d in wake of the Southeast Asian tsunami.

Just google the words “tsunami” and “God” and you will find hundred of articles addressing “where was God in the tsunami?”

It seems that people of all types – from Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and Jewish clergy to atheists and agnostics, from media pundits from one coast to the other, from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times – are weighing in with their thoughts, questions doubts and beliefs about G-d.

This sudden deluge of religious reaction needs to be analyzed. What do we learn about the human race from the fact that G-d becomes the focus of discussion when the critical mass is affected by the news of a major catastrophe?

Opinions about G-d obviously vary from one extreme to the next. From seeing G-d as a helpless Being to an all-powerful One, from being indifferent to non-existent.

What is strikingly missing from this monologue is the question: What will be with us? Is this all about G-d, or do we have a role to play as well in the universe? What personal lessons will we take from all of this? Beyond the outpouring of aid and all the wonderful work of people everywhere toward helping the stricken, which must be appreciated, what long-term affect will this wake-up call have on us?

It’s relatively easy to speak about G-d – whether He brought on this tragedy, or He just helplessly stood by. No one is losing sleep discussing G-d’s silence and mysterious ways. That’s all theology. And G-d is always a convenient “scapegoat” or “crutch” in times of trouble.

What is truly difficult to talk about is our own personal priorities and mission in life.

Frankly, G-d will be fine. He has always been fine, and has survived us all. After all if He is G-d He can take care of Himself. Our concerns shouldn’t be about G-d, but about ourselves.

I would even submit a radical, perhaps sacrilegious statement: Talking about G-d can actually be an escape, a convenient copout, even a form of idol worship, that distracts us from our own Divinely charged responsibilities.

In the Talmud there is a section that discusses the disheartening signs that will identify a spiritually impoverished generation in “the end of days.” Then the Talmud concludes that things will come to a point where people will say “we have no one to rely on but G-d”. Apparently, this final statement is somewhat of a consolation that not all is lost. However a great Rebbe once interpreted that this statement is also part of the problem.

When people give up and say in resignation that “we have no one to rely on but G-d” they are basically declaring that we are helpless and powerless – something that goes against the very core of faith.

Not to suggest that we are responsible for the tsunami or any other tragedy. But at the same time we are never merely passive bystanders, or worse yet, victims, of a harsh life; we are complete partners in the process of refining the world in which we live.

The reason being, because G-d created us in the Divine Image, essentially empowering us with the message: “When your are challenged in any way, even in times of crisis, don’t just look at Me. Look at yourselves – you were created in My image and you have My power to make a difference.”

Yes, we turn to G-d in prayer and we ask and even demand His support and strength. But that’s only half the picture. The other half is that we are G-d’s equal partner and there’s much that we have been empowered to do.

Instead of trying to understand G-d on our terms – in effect creating a G-d in our Image – the exact opposite is true: We should be trying to emulate G-d’s ways, and figuring out how we can transform the universe.

To truly understand this central theme we need not look very far. The story in these week’s Torah portions actually tells us the true story of our time.

Essentially the entire account of the Egyptian exile and exodus documents how people of all backgrounds, including people of faith, deal with suffering and oppression. Beginning with Moses, the epitome of faith, we find a fascinating dialogue between him and G-d about the greatest question in life: “Why?” “Why are you – a good G-d – being cruel to these people?”

But Moses doesn’t suffice with the question. He becomes an active – the most active – participant in the ensuing drama. Frankly, G-d could have freed the people without Moses, without plagues, without anyone’s help. But then again, G-d could have also not allowed the Jews to be enslaved in the first place. Since we’re already in the hypothetical mode, let’s step back even further and realize that G-d could have not created our entire existence in a way that allows for human suffering.

But G-d chose to create our existence just the way it is, and created us in His Image, with the power to lead the way to Redemption. Moses leads the way.

What follows is the most intriguing and complex relationship between man and G-d ever documented. The greatest paradox of all remains the one in which Moses both argues with G-d and simultaneously completely embraces his mission. No excuses. No fears. No copouts. He takes the “bull by the horns” including the way he directly confronts G-d in the process.

What emerges is an entirely new way of looking at G-d – not with the juvenile eyes that see a “white bearded angry, wrathful, force waiting to strike us with lightning when we misbehave.” Not a G-d created in our “human image.” Rather a sophisticated, complicated, yet subtle perspective of G-d – on G-d’s terms.

So cup your ears and listen closely.

When G-d appeared to Moses in the burning bush and charged him with the mission to take the people of Israel out of Egypt, Moses asks G-d in return: “I will come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they will say, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I tell them? G-d replied to Moses: “I Am who I Am… Tell the children of Israel, ‘I Am (Eh‑he‑yeh) has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14).

You won’t find a more cryptic statement.

What does “I Am who I Am” mean?!

Explain the sages and the mystics: Moses anticipated the big question that the children of Israel will ask of him. “What is His name?” “Who is this G-d that allows innocent people to suffer? You say that G-d has ‘seen the suffering of His people in Egypt,’ has ‘heard their cries,’ and ‘knows their pain,’ and has therefore sent you to redeem us. Where was He until now?!”

The only answer G-d gives Moses is to tell them “I Am who I Am.” The simple two words “I Am” means that I am true Reality. I just am, period. By saying so, G-d was describing and revealing for the first time the essence of His reality — that is, He exists because he exists.

Human beings understand existence only as a process of cause and effect; we cannot comprehend or even imagine an existence that is undefined, that has no cause, that is totally unlike our own.  Something exists only after we prove how and why it exists. On the other hand, G-d has no cause other than Himself; nothing preceded Him; His being derives from His own self. G-d’s existence must exist, for it is true reality.

So G-d is an existence that is unlike any existence, “a non-existential existence.” It is real because it is real; a reality that exists because it exists: “I am who I am.”  To truly know G-d’s nature, we would have to be like G-d.

Therefore, we cannot define G-d.  If a person were to use the human mind to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that G-d exists, it would not be G-d that he discovered; it would only be a product of the human mind.

This was G-d’s answer to the people’s outcry, “What is His name?!” Tell the children of Israel, said G-d to Moses, that My name is Eh‑he‑yeh, “I am.” Where was I all these years? I was with you. I am being, I am existence, I am reality. I am in your tears, in your cries, in your spilled blood. I Am with you in your present distress, and I shall be with you in future exiles and persecutions (Rashi).

G-d manifests Himself in many ways in our lives, as expressed in the different names of G-d. Each name represents another dimension of Divine revelation. But these are all defined revelations and expressions of G-d. In pain and suffering, where there is no revelation, the essence itself emerges – G-d as the very core of reality, that pervades and transcends every form of experience, and thus relates equally to them all, joyous and painful alike.

Reality – “I am” – is real not because we’re comfortable with it and comprehend it. And it doesn’t become less real if we don’t understand it and are disturbed by it. If G-d is Reality (I say “if” just for the skeptic within us all), then His reality is not weakened by tragedy, as it’s not strengthened by ecstasy. It is because it is. And it is the essence of all there is – both of adorned beauty and of the barren “thorn bush.”

Indeed, one can even say that Reality precedes – and put in place – the rules and definitions o what we call “joy” and “pain.”

G-d told Moses – and by extension tells us all: “I am there with you, suffering with you, praying for redemption together with you, and being redeemed with you.”

We are in a complex, symbiotic relationship with G-d. As complex as our intimate lives are, as complicated as our personal relationships may be, our relationship with G-d is infinitely more complex. Yet it is also simple.

All sorts of options are being currently offered in surveys and essays about G-d’s role in the tsunami and in disasters – natural or other – in general. Are they Divine punishments, tests or mysterious ways, or is G-d uninvolved either because He chooses not to be, or is unable to be? Or do we simply deny G-d’s existence in the first place, and thus attribute disasters to the course of another mother called “nature” (why not father?).

That seems to cover the entire spectrum of possible options.

Almost. But not quite.

All these options are based on linear human thinking. Either G-d is causing the tsunami or not. Either G-d exists or He does not. It’s a yes or no type of question.

But G-d is not linear, and our limited logic cannot fathom G-d’s “I Am” type of Reality – a Reality where there is no paradox.

The option not mentioned is this: G-d is involved and not involved at the same time. Yes, its’ all part of G-d’s mysterious ways. But above all, G-d is in a complex relationship with us and we too are in some mysterious way involved in world dynamics.

Not necessarily on an individual level, and not as retribution – but us and G-d are in “the same boat together” both in joy and in tragedy. What that exactly means for G-d is His business. What it means for us is our business. And what it means for us is that we have to get our act together.

Yes, we may not be able to directly prevent tsunamis, earthquakes and mudslides. But we can correct the psychological and spiritual “tsunamis,” quakes and slides in our lives. And one way or another the microcosm affects the macrocosm. The butterfly effect is not just about a breath in Baltimore creating a typhoon in Singapore. It’s about a shift in consciousness in one end of the world generating a reaction at the other end. A simple gesture, an unadorned action between you and your neighbor alters the universe forever.

When we say that we do not know G-d’s mysterious ways, “My thoughts are unlike yours…,” that is not a claim of ignorance but a claim of knowledge. It is saying that we want to get beyond our linear way of thinking and access the way G-d “thinks.”

If nothing else perhaps tragedy – and all the grand questions it raises – compels and propels us to this essential place of paradox, and to begin thinking like G-d. Not to try fitting G-d into our preconceived models, but to fit ourselves into His grand model.

Tragic moments – when our entire template is shred to pieces, and our secure foundations are shaken to the core – is the junction where our existence reaches and recognizes its own boundaries; where our reality meets (or collides with) another, higher reality, with a dissonance that can often be unbearable.

But it is at these intersections – and in these moments – where a new birth is begins. Birth pains are the result of two realities colliding.

When life doesn’t seem to be working according to our plans, G-d’s “I Am who I Am” is challenging our defined “I am” identities.

In response, our calling is not to succumb to the temptation and address the challenge by trying to neatly fit G-d into our “image” (“You shall not make a carved image or any likeness of that which is in the heavens above”). Rather, we must remember that we were created in the Divine Image. As such, we can and must relate to the Divine “I Am” reality.

And in doing so we become divine ourselves. Because the ultimate goal is the fusion of our identities and the Divine identity.

After all our discussions about G-d on our terms, the time has come to relate to G-d on His terms. (Don’t be afraid: our terms will not be compromised).

Are you ready?

Post Tsunami Tremors

At least three things have changed forever since the December 26^th tsunami ravaged South Asia:

Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. Families were torn asunder, never to be the same again.

The map of the devastated region has been altered; coastlines and ports will need to be recharted.

The unprecedented outpouring of humanitarian aid.

However, the question remains whether the fourth, and perhaps most important landscape of all will change: Our personal lives.

As we speak, our interest wanes as we recede back to our quotidian lives, just as the tsunami waters receded back to sea. New headlines replace the old ones, as we go on with our lives.

A fascinating article in the NY Times Business section (of all places) captured a unique modern phenomenon resulting from the tsunami. Stuart Elliot writes in the column on advertising (January 5), how the new year’s resolution-related commercial pitches are colliding with the news of the tsunami.

You see, January is a key marketing season for the self-improvement industries in America. During this season “Americans are inundated with advertising blitzes intended to spur them into paroxysms of self-improvement, centered on making and keeping resolutions for the new year. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent encouraging people to eat better, exercise, undergo makeovers and spruce up their wardrobes, not to mention give up smoking and other bad habits that can be erased through buying something.

But this year the unexpected tsunami changed all that. “The 2005 version of the annual festival of self-help commercialism is unexpectedly confronting a potential distraction: news of the devastation caused by the tsunami in South Asia and the subsequent relief efforts. At the same time Americans are being asked to be self-absorbed, they are also being asked to think of others.”

Now listen to this: “That could jeopardize the effectiveness of scores of elaborate, expensive campaigns for foods, beverages, cosmetics, exercise and weight-loss regimens, vitamins, nutritional supplements and other products.

“You’ll have a large section of the population ‘just about me,’ but you’ll also have another group who will be concerned about the tsunami victims,” said Carol Cone, chief executive of Cone Inc. in Boston, an agency owned by the Omnicom Group that specializes in cause-related marketing campaigns. As a result, “the ad messages are not going to be as effective,” she said, particularly when it comes to consumers in the so-called Generation Y market segment. Born in the late 1970’s through the mid-1990’s, they are “the most socially conscious in our segmentation research,” she said.”

Do we cry or laugh at this dilemma? Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions displaced by an enormous earthquake and tsunami that have literally reshaped the very planet upon which we live, and this is “jeopardizing” the effectiveness of scores of elaborate, expensive marketing campaigns…

Rarely are we honored to see such a prominent display of the clash, beneath the façade, between “water” and “land” – between selfishness and selflessness, between the trap of our “industrialized” lives and our inner sense of what is right.

Make no mistake: This is a battle for our souls.

And we are being called upon to choose.

Will your body serve as a vehicle for your soul, or will your soul serve as vehicle for your body?

Not to choose, mind you, between crass materialism and ethereal spiritualism. Asceticism is not an option, nor is self-indulgence. Our calling is to integrate the two. But we are being called upon to choose which will take priority, which will be the means and which the end: Will self-actualizing materialism lead the way, with occasional spats of selfless self-righteousness, or will dedication to a higher cause lead the way, utilizing our material blessings to fuel its journey.

We are being given the opportunity and the gift to choose who will lead and who will follow: Will your body serve as a vehicle for your soul, or will your soul serve as vehicle for your body?

We always have before us these two choices, but there are times when doors of opportunity open up – quite literally, doors between two worlds, with only our perception and experience to block the way – that allow us to glimpse another reality. But then the doors close as quickly as they opened.

And it’s up to us to either follow along, or to hold on to our newfound insights.

The battle often takes a cynical turn. You can even say that the clash is between cynical meaninglessness and purposeful meaningfulness.

It’s not very difficult to argue that all this outpouring of philanthropy is simply a reaction of guilt and conscience, fueled by effective PR, to respond in some way to all the tragic images streaming into our homes from Southeast Asia. Cynics can dismiss all this as a fleeting reaction – a blip in the screen – of otherwise human greed that will shortly revert to the status quo as we succumb to the force of narcissistic gravity. The abovementioned January marketing dilemma is just one cold example of our indifference.

One person wrote to me last week criticizing my lauding the outpouring of international aid to the stricken countries. He challenged my premise with these words: “Do you really believe that the nations are so kind? One can only wonder what type of aid the nations would offer Israel if such a disaster would happen there (heaven forefend)! In a bit of time investigations will begin to emerge as to where all the charity went. Don’t be deceived by the sudden outpouring of kindness, it’s simply a result of ulterior motives, many of them quite self-serving.” To underscore his point, he sent me this linked article No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.

I have to disagree with him. Not because there is no abuse taking place or because all the giving is of pure intent. But because there is another way of looking at the human race, which counters the dismissive cynical approach; and from this perspective, when people offer their support for a good cause, even if it was manipulated and driven by ulterior engines, it reflects their inherent spiritual nature.

This perspective believes that we are inherently giving people due to the nature of our Divine souls. However the soul is usually trapped in a narcissistic material world and a selfish needy body, and it takes a tragedy and trauma to shake up our systems, revealing beneath the cracks a deeper reality of our own spiritual selves.

Indeed, “water” (soul) and “land” (body) are the actual metaphors used to describe these two realities, as discussed in last week’s article, Tsunami.

However, these cracks don’t stay open very long. After our initial awakening and inspiration, we gravitate back to our complacent routines.

When people offer their support for a good cause, even if it was manipulated and driven by ulterior engines, it reflects their inherent spiritual nature.

This is where our own choice comes into play. Will we allow the “matrix” of our “land” reality take back control, or will we allow our “water” consciousness keep us connected to our source and our purpose.

So there are two diametrically opposed ways of looking at people: As selfish beasts with passing aberrations (not so harsh: anomalies) of generosity, or as selfless souls locked in selfish bodies. (For more elaboration on these two psychological models.

In a second NY Times business article, a day later (January 6) the same writer writes about a new initiative directed toward encouraging volunteerism amongst aging and retiring, self-indulgent, baby boomers.

The Center for Health Communication at the Harvard School of Public Health begins an effort this week that includes advertising, events, the publication of a book and a public relations campaign, all aimed at promoting volunteerism, amongst the baby boomers, those 75 million to 77 million Americans born from 1946 to 1964.

The daunting question is whether “the baby boomers, long tagged as self-involved if not self-absorbed, be cajoled into not only thinking of others but doing for others?”

Elliot cites others saying, “there is this two-sided quality to boomers. Boomers are certainly capable of amazing self-involvement, but when something captures our interest, we will band together and make a difference.”

Even if as many as half the retiring baby boomers – “the most indulged, and most self-indulged, generation in history” – decide that ‘this is my time and I don’t care about anybody else,’ that would still leave “tens of millions of boomers who will decide that’s enormously unsatisfying and they would not feel useful if they weren’t taking meaningful portions of time to give back.”

This volunteering effort grew out of a survey sponsored last year by the foundation and the school, titled “Reinventing Aging: Baby Boomers and Civic Engagement.” A decision was made to focus the appeals initially on efforts to get boomers involved in mentoring young people. That is why the campaign that starts this week carries the theme: “Share what you know. Mentor a child.”

The theme is intended to leverage the fact that “boomers have an optimistic and positive attitude toward the future,” as well as to “overcome the barrier that people put up when they say, ‘I don’t have any special skills,’ by telling them, ‘You have this life of experience.’”

So there you have the choice baby boomers and all the rest of us: Will you be a giver or a taker?

Whenever a major event takes place in the world, especially one that has tragically affected so many lives, it is a wake-up call to all of us.

The tsunami came and went, changing many things in its wake. Future change however is in our hands.

Worse than the tragedy itself is perhaps the utter senselessness of it. One of the greatest acts of human dignity is when survivors of tragedy transform their loss into growth, and their pain into positive change. Instead of succumbing to demoralization, we channel the deep anguish into a powerful surge of deeper consciousness and outpouring of goodness.

And that’s in our hands. We can in some way redeem even a tragedy if it transforms the people affected to become better people.

The question today is: Will we change our personal landscapes, or allow this tragedy to go into history leaving no lasting positive change in our lives?

The tsunami – and all the permanent changes it has created – must beckon each of us to ask the question: Has my landscape changed for the better?

When we answer yes, the collective effect will ripple through the universe and through history, bringing the world to fulfilling its ultimate purpose, “filled with Divine knowledge as the waters cover the sea.”

So another year ends as another book ends. As this new year begins, we conclude the book of Genesis.

To read today’s news buy yourself a newspaper. To read the news of history – the eternal story of the human struggle – read Genesis.

Yes, two parallel narratives play themselves out in our lives at all times: The story of our outer lives and the story of our inner lives. Many of us are quite aware about the events happening around us. But what about the story of what is happening within us?

The biggest story of all is your story – the story of your life. It is the story of our mission – our raison d’etre.

And this story is told in the Torah chapters, particularly those read this time of the year.

The mystics explain that the book of Genesis is as its name implies: A seed that contains all the fruit that will one day grow from it. The story of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with all its details is like a blueprint that encapsulates in microcosm all the events that would take place in history, both personally and globally.

The Torah chapters from the beginning of Genesis outline the story of our life’s mission:

The mission begins (Bereishit). The mission is revitalized, with the cleansing of the world following mans’ great fall (Noach). The mission is embraced and begins to be realized by Abraham, with the first step being the need to transcend our own subjectivity (Lech Lecho). To embrace the mission we need self-sacrifice (Vayeira).

In the next chapter (Chayei Sarah) stage one of the mission concludes with the passing of Sarah and then Abraham – the first pioneers who discovered the mission of the human race. This is then followed by stage two, the life of Isaac and Rebecca (Toldot). Followed by stage three – the story of Jacob and his journey and his battles with Laban and Esau (Vayeitzei, and Vayishlach). The selling of Joseph by his brothers captures the struggle of faith and reason (Vayeishev, Miketz, Vayigash).

And now we come to the conclusion of the book of Genesis (Vayechi), which relates in detail the end of Jacob’s life on earth, as well as of his children, the twelve tribes.

The mystics teach us that the characters in Torah are archetypes of different traits that we all carry within ourselves.

Abraham embodies Chesed, loving-kindness. His life is one of enduring generosity. Isaac personifies Gevurah, awe and discipline. Jacob incarnates Tiferet, beauty and compassion.

Chesed, Gevurah and Tiferet are the three central forces and building blocks of all existence. Every aspect of life is comprised of a right, left and center. The entire body is structured in three columns: The right side (right arm and leg), the left side (left arm and leg) and the center – the spine, which creates balance.

First we learn of Abraham’s journey – which reflects the journey of the Abraham within each of us. Next, comes the discretion of Gevurah. Once love and discipline are in place, we can then complete the structure, with Jacob’s Tiferet – the critical balancing spine that carries the entire infrastructure. See a previous article Balance for more elaboration.

As the book of Genesis ends we have in sum the essential building blocks and tools to discover our mission in life and face all our life challenges.

You can say that Genesis is the formative stage of life, when we are educated, trained and equipped with the tools we will need to face the real world.

Once we are armed with this powerful arsenal, we then enter the next stage in the book of Exodus. We enter a harsh world that initially enslaves us by the inherent constraints (Mitzrayim) of material existence. We have to struggle to find our way and to maintain our equilibrium.

But we don’t come defenseless. We are given all the resources we need to “make it.” And not merely to survive or manage, but to thrive – to flourish and blossom, and achieve greatness.

Yes, greatness.

To do so however requires us to become familiar with our inner story.

Perhaps we need to give equal time to our souls as we do to our bodies. Of course we learn many things from the news around us, including things about our inner lives. Sports and entertainment are a big part of people’s lives today. But we also can often get caught up in the superficiality of events around us. Sometimes we also begin to project our lives through the lives of others – Hollywood and rock stars, other celebrities and even comic book heroes.

So next time you have an inclination to read the daily paper, watch the news or see a movie about other people’s lives, perhaps try opening up the story of your own life and its purpose.

The book of Genesis ends. But our book just begins. What will your story be? It’s up to you.

With all the recent talk about faith and reason, it seems wise to retrace the steps to the roots of this conflict. After all, problems are best solved at their origin. No one ever gets lost in a moment; we begin by slowly wandering off course, slightly veering off center, until, with time, we can no longer find our way.

A spate of recent books include titles like “The End of Faith,” “The Twilight of Atheism” and “Doubt: A History.” Since the November elections editorial pages and TV pundits have been consumed with the issue of religion and its role in politics and in our lives in general.

Self-proclaimed people of both faith and faithlessness have surfaced, all pontificating about the virtues of each viewpoint.

In truth, this conflict is nothing new. The role of faith and how to balance it with human logic has plagued people from the beginning of time. In our time this conflict has manifested most in the last two century-old battle between religion and science.

Some prefer the rather simplistic approach that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, two different domains that can never be reconciled.

According to this thinking faith is the domain of the ignorant. A relic of the past, that is slowly being phased out in the ever-growing shadow (or they may say the light) of science, reason and open-mindedness. How they can possibly dismiss millions of people of faith is beyond me. I understand that one can dismiss the masses who continuously show that they can buy into any rubbish, if indoctrinated long enough. But amongst the millions of faithful there must be at least one or two intelligent people, who have embraced faith after extensive inquiry and introspection.

On the other end of the spectrum, many people who claim to speak in the name of faith are dogmatic, intolerant and equally dismissive of their counterparts.

I for one feel that we all have two voices inside of us—the voice of faith and the voice of skepticism. Therefore both viewpoints can teach us much about our own inner struggles and the very nature of the human condition. True faith is not a passive state that lacks the discretion and balance of reason, and reason is not a force that denies faith. They actually complement each other.

A radio interviewer once asked me if I ever had a crisis of faith. Apparently he thought that I appeared like someone who was living in (ignorant?) bliss so often associated with the devout life. I laughed and told him, “yes I did and I do have a crisis of faith. Every moment of my life.”

“How can one not have a crisis,” I explained, “when we continuously witness so much senseless pain and suffering of the innocent. Faith does not mean blindness to life’s harsh realities. Every time we see a vulnerable, harmless child hurt, how one not have crisis of faith how a good G-d could allow such loss…”

“The people of deepest faith were always the ones that posed the greatest challenge to G-d. ‘How can the Judge of the universe not do justice?’ Abraham implored. ‘Why do You do evil to these people?’ Moses demanded.”

I then asked him in return if he ever had a crisis of faith. He replied that he had no faith. So I followed up and wondered whether he had a crisis of unfaithfulness (a tongue-twister which means a question whether he ever doubted his lack of faith). “You probably think,” I suggested, “that to have faith is easier than having no faith.” “Absolutely,” he said. “Faith is a crutch, an escape that can comfort someone in times of crisis. When all else fails, and logic no longer works, a person of faith can fall back on his beliefs. While a person that lacks faith has no such crutch and must face the challenge head-on.”

“You are mistaken,” I told him. “For true faith means that you have to struggle every moment with the dilemma how a good G-d could allow suffering. The question doesn’t let you sleep. While a person not of faith should not be disturbed at life’s injustice—after all, who says that life has to be just? Survival of the fittest is the heartless law of the land, and it’s just a cold fact of life that the stronger ones will prevail over the weaker ones.”

“No, I can’t accept that,” the interviewer exclaimed. “I am bothered by innocent loss. Perhaps then I guess I do have a measure of faith in some form of justice,” he concluded.

*  *  *

Where do we find the first conflict between faith and reason?

We find it in this week’s Torah portion. The faith/reason battle lies at the heart of the conflict between Joseph and his brothers, and frankly, this can help us understand the inside story of their dispute.

The big question is of course how could the tribes, devout and holy men, stoop to petty jealousy and plan to kill their brother Joseph and then sell him into slavery?! And all this due to two dreams that Joseph shared with them!

The mystery only deepens as Joseph and his brothers meet again (unbeknownst to them) 22 years later, when they come to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph goes through an elaborate scheme, first imprisoning his brother Shimeon, then demanding that they return with their youngest brother Benjamin, only to then conspire to arrest Benjamin. Exasperated, Judah confronts Joseph. He defiantly approaches him in this week’s portion, as Benjamin’s guarantor, and demands that Benjamin be released, and Judah be taken in his place.

Finally, Joseph breaks down. He no longer could control himself and he reveals his identity to his brothers. Without a bit of anger—he actually pacifies his brothers that “it is not you who sent me here, but G-d,” in order “to save lives”—he welcomes them and implores of them to bring their father and together live in Egypt in the “best part of the land.”

Clearly there is something more going on than just brotherly politics. Especially when you turn the clock forward some 650 years, and the conflict between the Judah and Joseph takes on tragic proportions. After King Solomon’s death, the ten tribes, under the leadership of Jeroboam (of the tribe of Joseph/Efraim), break away from Rechoboam, son of Solomon, grandson of David, of the house of Judah. From then on the (northern) Kingdom of Israel is split from the (southern) Kingdom of Judah, until they both would be destroyed, first the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians 200 years later, and then, 136 years later, the Kingdom of Judah and the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians.

The plot thickens. Though the split of kingdoms was a tragedy, it was meant to be, Divinely ordained:

“When Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way. He was clad in a new garment… Ahijah grabbed the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces. And he said to Jeroboam, ‘Take the ten pieces, for thus says G-d: Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to you. But he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.’” (Kings I 11:29-32)

The end of the story is even more tragic. Instead of using this Divine opportunity to create a just and sublime Kingdom, Jeroboam ends up creating an idolatrous nation, which would lead to its destruction just two centuries later.

The story is still not over. Ezekiel tells us, in this week’s Haftorah, that Judah and Joseph would one day reunite and be one:

“Thus says G-d: Behold, I am to take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel associated with him, and I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand. When the sticks on which you write are in your hand before their eyes, then say to them, Thus says G-d: ‘Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel. One king shall be king over them all. My servant David shall be king over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them. They shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. They shall not defile themselves any more with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the habitations in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they shall be My people, and I will be their G-d. Thus the nations shall know that it is I, G-d, Who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary shall be set up among them forever.’” (Ezekiel 37:19-24)

There must be some profound significance in this conflict between Joseph and Judah (and the other brothers) that it spans all of history, and does not come to resolution until the end of days, which is yet to happen.

The psycho-spiritual mystics explain it this way:

Each of the 12 tribes is a unique archetype in the spectrum of human experience. They all are necessary components in our lives and they complement each other. (For a detailed breakdown, see The Twelve Tribes). Joseph and Judah represent the two pillars of scholarship and action (Talmud and Maaseh).

Leadership was given to Judah, because Judah (from the word ‘hodaah,’ “acknowledgment”) embodies faith and humility: the single most important ingredient in a true leader. He does not see himself as great, only as a transparent channel of a Higher Will completely dedicated to serving his people. His ego and personality do not stand in the way between the people and G-d. Without absolute faith, humility and selflessness, leadership and the power that it wields is just plain dangerous.

When Joseph’s brothers heard his dreams and sensed they would be fulfilled in Joseph becoming the leader over them all, they immediately recognized a formidable threat to the Divine plan. Judah was designated to be the leader. His descendants – the House of David – were given kingship. Joseph’s leadership was mutiny against the Divinely ordained leadership of Judah. They foresaw the split that the children of Joseph would create in their secession from the house of David, the Kingdom of Israel that would break away from the Kingdom of Judah. To preempt this tragedy they felt that Joseph’s mutiny deserved death.

In psychological terms, the tribes recognized the inherent danger in leadership driven by reason alone lacking the deep humility necessary in true leadership. For all of Joseph’s strength, scholarship without humility, knowledge without action, reason without faith, leads to arrogance and ultimately can become destructive. An absolute commitment to truth is built upon the unwavering foundation of faith. This faith and selflessness manifests in implementation and not just ideas.

The brothers however were mistaken in one critical regard: Timing. True, a perfect world would have Judah as its leader (Moshiach son of David), but while we still live in an imperfect world, where there is a dichotomy between matter and spirit, ignorant faith can be even more dangerous. Leadership needs to be informed and directed by knowledge. The passion of absolute faith without knowledge, humility without the direction of wisdom, action without first studying, can become misguided and misdirected, to the point of harming others in the name of ignorant faith. Thus, the need to first experience Joseph’s leadership, to temper and balance the passion of Judah – wisdom to direct and guide one’s actions, knowledge to channel the power of faith. Joseph’s leadership (Moshiach son of Joseph) prepares and refines the world for the ultimate leadership of Judah (as related in the Haftorah).

Though the split of the two Kingdoms was a tragedy, it reflected the reality of the dichotomy between faith and reason of an imperfect world. Separately both “kingdoms” would be destroyed. Reason and faith – scholarship and action – need to serve as two complementary forces.

Indeed, Ezekiel tells us that both “sticks” of reason and faith will ultimately be integrated as “one stick,” under one leader, David who will be their “prince forever.”

Now let’s turn the clock forward. Over 3500 years have passed since Joseph reunited with his brothers, and 3000 years since the “garment” was rent into pieces. During these years we have seen the tragic consequences of misplaced and distorted faith: Millions of people were killed in the name of Holy Crusades and Inquisitions. We have also seen the emergence of what has been coined the “age of reason.”

Yet, tensions between the two still simmer. We can’t seem to find a balance between the passions of faith and the reflections of reason.

However, by retracing the steps to the initial roots of the conflict we can come to understand the tragic consequences that result when these two forces are at each other’s throats. And we can also learn what the benefits of both forces, how the “two sticks” can complement and inform each other, and together create one stronger “branch.”

We also firmly believe that history is one continuum, continuously evolving to higher levels of consciousness and perfection. After all these years of conflict, and the accumulative wisdom about reason and faith that we have gained over these years, we can today stand as “midgets on the shoulders of giants,” and uncover a deeper maturity about these two critical forces in our lives.

Is it possible that we today can finally restore the garment that was rent so long ago?

Inconsistencies in Our Life Choices

This week’s Torah portion, which discusses dual personalities, helps us answer a critical question in our lives: Are we hypocrites when our behavior and our beliefs are inconsistent?

How disconcerting is it when we see everywhere we look – both at ourselves and at others – one constant: No one’s actions live up to their belief system. People profess many high standards. Many wax eloquent about their Divine, indispensable mission in life. Yet when it comes to behavior on a day-to-day level, we all fall short of our own standards.

Does this make us hypocrites? Or just plain insane? As one friend asked me the other day: “I can’t believe myself. Here I am dispensing critical advice to a colleague, and then I go off and make exactly the same mistake! How is it possible that I know one thing – and know it with certainty in every fiber of my being – and when it comes to action, I do the exact opposite? Am I a charlatan or just neurotic?”

“Welcome to the real world,” I told him. “The world of dichotomies and paradoxes. With the biggest dichotomy of all perhaps being the one between our beliefs and our behavior.”

All you have to do is open up the newspaper. Barely a day passes without another scandal and act of hypocrisy. In the past few years how many people have fallen who claimed to be representing “traditional values”? Then of course you have the critics, decrying the hypocrisy and depravity of others, while themselves shortly after being caught in their own web of deception.

A while back there was an article provocatively titled Many Who Voted For ‘Values’ Still Like Their Television Sin? The article scathingly observed the transparent contradiction between the “values” message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters and their television viewing preferences. By and large the most popular TV shows are “far more likely to keep pumping from the deep well of murder, mayhem and sexual transgression” than “morally driven” programming. The article quotes TV executives, who explain: “We say one thing and do another. People compartmentalize about their lives and their entertainment choices.”

The divide between what people accept as proper in public and what they choose to enjoy in their private lives, is nothing new in the history of the world or this country, the article points out. The Pilgrims, for instance, had deep beliefs and values, as we see from their writings. “Then you look at the court records and you see all kinds of” decadent behavior.

So are many Americans just plain old hypocrites, yelling about values and faith in public, while being anything but in private?

And mind you, this issue is by no means exclusive to America. I’ll never forget a Friday night dinner debate over which culture is most hypocritical. A Swiss gentleman shared with us that he truly despises his country, because, as he put it, “in Switzerland you sit around a table with family and friends. Everyone is smiling and oh so polite. Yet beneath the surface the very same people are engaged in betrayal and all sorts of illicit behavior.” An Englishman popped up and begged to differ. “You’ve never been to England. I don’t think there is a more hypocritical country. Ostensibly people are so cordial, but all that smooth veneer masks a profound inner decadence and corruption.” Not to be outdone, a woman from France chuckled and said: “We clearly have the monopoly on duplicity. Many people like to believe that France is the source of chic. Let me tell you, France is the original and biggest importer of hypocrisy.”

Well, the debate raged on all night for the claim of first prize in hypocrisy. I couldn’t stop smiling. It was just so amusing. I guess, everyone who experiences hypocrisy thinks that his version is the worst. Too bad, we didn’t have fair representation of other nationalities staking their claim on who is the most hypocritical of them all.

But what exactly is hypocrisy?

I submit that it is yet another misused-turned-cliche word that really has no meaning.

Let’s take, for argument sake, a person you know who is unarguably virtuous. He has demonstrated in the past that he is a giving and generous person, who has a natural – and nurtured – sensitivity and love for others. One day we witness him behaving uncharacteristically cruel. Would you say that all his natural virtue is in reality really one big hypocrisy, or that his cruel behavior is the hypocritical one?

Webster defines hypocrisy, as “feigning to be what one is not.” But to define “what one is not” we must first define “what one is.”

Who are we? Are we good people or selfish ones? Are we ruthless warriors or gentle creatures; sharks or lambs? Are we driven primarily by the relentless “survival of the fittest,” narcissistic and selfish, or by our Divine dimension?

As usual, when you look closely the Bible provides us with ancient yet highly contemporary insight into a dissonance that has been plaguing mankind from the beginning of time.

In this week’s portion the twin brother, Esau and Jacob, finally and dramatically encounter each other after 22 years of profound hostility.

The brothers are ready to go to war. Indeed, Jacob has a preview of what’s coming with his all-night wrestle with Esau’s angel. Instead, when they finally meet, Esau and Jacob embrace.

“Esau ran toward him [Jacob], embraced him, fell upon his neck, and kissed him. And they wept.” Two opinions are posited whether Esau “kissed” his brother with a “full heart or “not with a full heart.” Rashi cites both opinions, explaining that the dots above the word “and he kissed him” denote that this kiss was fraught with deeper implications.

Esau was just about to kill Jacob for stealing his blessings. 22 years later, Esau was mobilized to battle Jacob, and Jacob was ready for the worst. One has to be skeptical of Esau’s sudden turnaround and his loving embrace of Jacob.

Was Esau a hypocrite? Did he love or hate his brother? Is Esau a man of war or a loving brother? A killer or lover? Did he embrace his brother for pure or ulterior reasons? And what about Jacob, did he love his brother, or was he also driven by ulterior motives?

Esau’s duality is not exclusive to him. We also find the dual nature of Jacob, as reflected in his two names, Jacob and Israel. Jacob (Yaakov) means “at the heel,” named after Jacob was born grasping the heel of his elder twin, Esau. Later, when Jacob disguised himself as Esau to receive the blessings that Isaac intended to give the elder brother, Esau proclaimed: “No wonder he is called Jacob (“cunning”)! Twice he has deceived me: he has taken my birthright, and now he has taken my blessings.”

Israel, on the other hand, is the name given to Jacob in this week’s portion after he “has struggled with the divine and with men, and has prevailed.”

So, who is the true Jacob? And who is the true Esau?

This question takes on much larger proportions. Jacob and Esau represent the two forces of spirit and matter. Their struggle is our struggle between the secular and the sacred, between faith and modern culture.

Shall ever the twain meet? The answer is an unequivocal and resolute yes. The struggle would ensue for many years – that, after all, is the purpose of existence, to refine, sublimate and make the material world home for the Divine.

So who are we: good people or selfish ones, warriors or lovers? The answer, my friends, is that we are both and neither. We have both a warrior-like Esau and a scholar-like Jacob within our psyches. Indeed Esau and Jacob themselves have both personalities. Jacob has the “Jacob” and “Israel” dimensions; Esau is both a warrior and a son of Isaac and Rebecca. He is Jacob’s twin brother.

These two forces are in perpetual battle. An inherent tension exists between matter and spirit, as they collide. Yet, ultimately they can and will be integrated.

Did the two brothers Jacob and Esau really love or hate each other? The answer is complex. On one hand matter and spirit are at each other’s throats. On the other, they truly are “twin” forces that ultimately will unite and completely embrace each other in a healthy, non-biased, unity.

From the perspective of the tension, it may sometime appear hypocritical to act virtuously and pursue higher standards while succumbing to our lowest common denominator. But from the perspective of our true selves, it is not hypocrisy at all: It is the desperate attempt to align our inner selves with our outer behavior.

It all comes down to this: Hypocrisy depends on what we believe lies at the essence of a human being. If we are truly beasts, then it would seem hypocritical if we behaved like men. If we are Divine, then we are hypocritical when we behave like beasts.

Two short stories that demonstrate this point:

A complaint was brought to the Alter Rebbe against his chassidim: “They prolong their prayers and are careful with their performance of the mitzvos, but their efforts are superficial and they do not truly uphold that level of piety!” The Alter Rebbe replied: “Is it really so; is it really so? If it is, then they are deserving of the verdict of the mishnah (end of Peah 8: 9): ‘One who does not limp and is not blind, yet makes out as if he is, will not die until he becomes one of them!!’ Since they act like chassidim, and act with love and fear of G-d through meditation and prolonged prayer, then surely they will not leave this world until it is truly so!”

Among the chassidim of the Tzemach Tzedek was a businessman whose dealings took him to the business centers of the large cities of Russia as well as to several foreign capitals. As time went by, he became increasingly uncomfortable in these environments with his long black coat and chassidic hat. Gradually, he adopted a more secular mode of dress on his business trips. Of course, he continued to travel to his Rebbe in traditional chassidic garb.

Then, one day, he appeared before his Rebbe in his businessman’s attire. “Rebbe,” he announced, “I’ve decided to put an end to my hypocritical behavior. This is how I dress on all my travels, so why delude myself and others with my chassidic clothes?

“Reb Yankel,” said the Rebbe, “do you think that I was not aware that you dress differently in Leipzig and Paris than you do here before me? But I thought that here you showed us your true self, and there you were the hypocrite….”

Ask yourself: How do you look at yourself and at others? If you see them as Divine creatures, then no act of virtue – no matter how tainted it is by ulterior motive – is ever seen as hypocritical. (see Maimonides, Laws of Divorce end of ch. 2).

Apply this principle to your relationships and they will be transformed forever. Ask yourself: How do you see your spouse, your child, your beloved, your friends? A good gardener is fully confident that the Earth, when nourished and the weeds are cut away, will produce beautiful flowers. If you see the people around you as Divine entities – and expect that of them – you will contribute greatly to bringing out the “flowers” from among the weeds.

How you see or don’t see another person’s true personality, what we expect or don’t expect of each other, is a major factor in how that person will respond. If your child behaves inappropriately and you reinforce it by suggesting that the child is doing nothing more than living up to the “beast” in all of us, that may be the ultimate hypocrisy which undermines the emergence of the child’s beautiful nature. If however, you convey the message to your child that s/he is a pure soul, and the “negative” behavior is an aberration, that becomes a very powerful motivating force for the child to live up to his/her potential.

The same is true for therapists and clients. A good therapist is sensitive and never judgmental, but at the same time will not help “justify” low expectations. Recognizing the enormous potential and resilience of the human spirit, the therapist will do everything possible to elicit that spirit from within the client.

In our continuing journey toward embracing our mission, this week’s chapter teaches us a vital lesson. Tiferet, or balance – the domain of Jacob – requires us to recognize the two struggling forces within us, and not feel that we are hypocrites in our attempt to access our virtuous soul.

Instead of seeing hypocrisy in our inconsistencies, we should be seeing in them our struggle to discover our true selves – a struggle that inevitably creates a dichotomy between what you believe and what you do.

Now the challenge is to align the two.

Will the real you stand up?