Tag: death

Drugs – Strange Fire

The Ecstasy of Politics

Dear Rabbi,

Thank you for speaking to me the other day. Your encouraging words were truly helpful to me in my detox process. As I shared with you, I was one of those wayward teenagers who began using alcohol and drugs recreationally – as a social thing, bored and looking for fun. Then I became more and more dependent on them until I turned into a full blown addict. Procuring a drug became my daily and nightly obsession. I lied, stole money, betrayed people I loved and those that loved me – anything to get my high.

Even with my life completely out of control, I could not get out of my trap until I did some real irreversible damage which I could no longer ignore (as I shared with you, and would rather not put it into writing). Only then, when I hit “rock bottom,” did I began reaching for help.

After years, literally years of rehab, I am just beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

My question to you is this: Beyond the addictive, destructive and unhealthy effects of substance abuse, is there any thing wrong with achieving a high through foreign substances? In other words: if drugs and alcohol would not have any adverse effects would the Torah have a problem with their use to reach a spiritual high?

I know that this question may seem trivial compared to my dreadful experiences. It may even seem as if I am trying to find some justification for their use. I assure you that this not the case. But it does intrigue me to understand the nature of the high induced by drugs, and if it can play a role, when used properly (if that is even possible), in achieving transcendence?

I appreciate your help, your vote of confidence and above all your contagious hope that gives me strength to continue my fight.

David [name changed]

—————–

Dear David,

Beyond the personal words of encouragement… I first hesitated to reply to your question, precisely because it seems completely out of place. You of all people know the horrible abyss of drug addiction. So why bring up even a slight consideration as to the possible benefits of an induced state of altered consciousness?

But then I reconsidered and realized that many others may have the same question. Additionally, it seems important to discuss not just the symptoms, but the actual roots of addiction.

You may be surprised to know that your question is directly addressed in no other place than the Bible itself. Yes, long before the plague of substance abuse in our times, we have a precedent that clarifies for us this topic, as well as many other issues around the timeless search for spiritual transcendence.

The opening of this week’s Torah portion concludes a mysterious event that took place three chapters back:

After the Sanctuary was finished, the Torah tells us that the two elder sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu:

“Offered a strange fire before G-d, which He had not commanded.”

The result:

“A fire went out from G-d and consumed them, and they died before G-d.”

Now, in this week’s portion, following the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, G-d specifically commanded that their example should not be repeated:

“And G-d spoke to Moses, after the death of Aaron’s two sons, who came close to G-d and died… Speak to Aaron your brother, that he [be careful to] not come at all times into the Holy… so that he not die… [but] with this shall Aaron come into the holy place.” (Leviticus 16:1-2)

The Torah continues with the conditions how to enter the Holy of Holies. Rashi explains that this command comes immediately after the statement of the death of Aaron’s sons, to warn him that his service of G-d should not be like that of his sons.

What lies behind Nadav and Avihu’s actions? Did they behave properly or not? On one hand, they were clearly great men who “came close to G-d;” on the other hand, “they died” because they “offered a strange fire before G-d, which He had not commanded.” And G-d is warning Aaron not to behave like them.

And what is the meaning of the “strange fire” that they offered?

Above all, if Aaron’s sons behaved wrongly why is it important to document their sad story, which presents them in a negative light?

The key to the story lies in the word “fire.”

Fire is passion. All passion comes from the fire of the soul:

“The soul of man is the fire of G-d.”

Like a flame, a soul always reaches upward, licking the air in its search for transcendence, only to be restrained by the wick grounding the flame to the earth. The soul’s fire wants to defy the confines of life; the free spirit wants to soar ever higher, always reaching for the heavens.

Like fire, the spirit ablaze cannot tolerate the mediocrity and monotony of the inanimate “wick” of materialism. Its passion knows no limits as it craves for the beyond.

But just like it can be the source of our greatest strength, the fire of the soul, like any fire, can also be the cause of great destruction.

Therein lays the story of Nadav and Avihu, two extraordinary souls:

When the holy Sanctuary was finished Aaron’s sons, deeply spiritual individuals, were drawn to enter the holiest sanctum on earth. They wanted to bask in the ecstasy of the Temple’s pure spirit.

Indeed, the behavior of Aaron’s two sons was not a sin; it was an act of great sanctification, as Moses tells Aaron immediately following the tragedy:

“This is what G-d spoke, saying: ‘I shall be sanctified by those who are close to Me.’”

The sages explain: Moses said, “Aaron, my brother, I knew that the Sanctuary would be sanctified by those who were beloved and close to G-d. When G-d said ‘I shall be sanctified by those close to Me,’ I thought it referred to me or you; now I see that they – Nadav and Avihu – are greater then both of us.”

Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar (the Ohr Hachaim) explains, that their death was:

“By Divine ‘kiss’ like that experienced by the perfectly righteous. Only [the problem was that] the righteous die when the Divine ‘kiss’ approaches them, while they died by their approaching it…. Although they sensed their own demise, this did not prevent them from drawing near [to G-d] in attachment, delight, delectability, fellowship, love, kiss and sweetness, to the point that their souls ceased from them.”

Nadav and Avihu’s death was a result of their profound yearning for a Divine experience. Their error was that they initiated it at their own discretion, and “selfishly” allowed the ecstasy to consume them. Their sin was not they got close to the Divine, but that they died doing so. In a sense, they wanted it too much, so much so that they rushed into the fire and got burned in the process. Their bodies could no longer contain their souls.

Thus the Torah says “when they came close to G-d and (with such passion that) they died.” Why does the Torah add “and they died” when it has already said, “after the death of the two sons of Aaron?” Although it is healthy to divest yourself of material concerns, at the moment when you stand poised at the ultimate ecstasy of the soul, you must turn again to the work that the soul must do to transform the physical existence. Nadav and Avihu achieved the ecstasy but not the return. This was their sin and the reason for their death. They “came close to G-d and they died.” They allowed their spiritual passion override their task to transform the world. They escaped beyond the world and beyond life itself.

If their motivation was pure, driven by the fiery passion of the soul, why then was it called a “strange fire?”

Because even if their intention was a good one, it ultimately was driven by their personal desire, albeit a spiritual desire, but still defined by their subjective drives. It may have begun for Divine reasons, but they allowed it to become their own personal interest, mounting to a point of intensity that it destroyed them, thus rendering the “fire” into a “strange fire,” one which “He had not commanded.” They entered on their own terms, at their own pace, at their own choosing – not on G-d’s terms.

And this was the reason that they actually ended up dying in the process. Because the same G-d that imbued us with passionate souls also commanded us to use the passion not to expire in ecstasy and escape the universe, no matter how appealing that choice may be, but to channel the passion downward and transform the material world in which we live into a Divine home. This is the purpose of the Temple: “build me a sanctuary (out of physical materials) and I will rest among you.”

Thus, the ultimate test of Aaron’s sons’ intentions was their inability to integrate the experience: Had they patiently and humbly entered on Divine terms, they would have been able to integrate the experience into their lives and return to sanctify their world. Integration would have confirmed that they were doing it not for themselves but for the cause, for G-d. The fact that they allowed themselves to be consumed with their own spiritual fire, demonstrated that it was their “own thing,” not G-d’s, a strange fire not commanded.

Now, in this week’s Torah portion, “after the death of Aaron’s sons,” Aaron is warned not to enter the Holy of Holies like his sons did. Rather, “with this shall Aaron enter the holy place” – in awe, obedience and self-abnegation. And in this way he would be able to “make atonement for himself and for his house” on the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, and to say a prayer for the sustenance of Israel – acts of concern for the world.

In other words, the determining factor whether the soul’s fire will be a constructive or destructive force is dependent on the person’s motivation, how he begins his spiritual journey: If it’s a self indulgent experience, driven primarily by personal desire and interest, then you will not wish to turn back from your private ecstasy to the needs of the world, and the fire will inevitably consume you. If, however, it is driven by the selfless dedication and all-out surrender to the Divine, then within this ecstasy, the desire ultimately to return and sanctify the world will always be implicit, and the fire will lift you and your world to exalted heights.

In the famous Talmudic story of the “four that entered the garden” (a mystical experience) only Rabbi Akiva began the journey with the proper attitude: He “entered in peace and (therefore) came out in peace.” Because he entered with humility, in obedience to the Divine will and seeking to unite the higher and lower worlds, that is why he came out in peace. His intention of returning was implicit at the outset of his path to religious ecstasy. While the other three – Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma and Acher – all entered for other reasons, which determined how they emerged. Ben Azzai entered seeking ecstasy, not return; therefore he “looked and died.” Ben Zoma “looked and was stricken” (with madness). Acher “mutilated the shoots” (i.e., became an apostate).

We are told the story of Aaron’s sons in order to teach us an invaluable lesson about our own life experiences:

Each of us contains a powerful soul, with fire in its belly. Each of us will, at one point or another, encounter spiritual opportunities; passionate moments which will entice and light up our fires, craving transcendence – the need to get beyond the daily grind. Transcendence can take on many shapes: Spirituality, music, romance, travel, or sexuality, to name a few.

How you act in these times – when the flames of your soul are ablaze – will define the destiny of your life.

This explains why this week’s portion is known by the name “after” or “after the death.” Why name a Torah portion with an odd title – “after the death?” Why emphasize their tragic death?

The Torah is telling us that the “death” of Aaron’s two sons – both the death itself, and “after the death” – teaches us a vital lesson, actually a twofold lesson:

1) The search and need for transcendence, the craving and yearning for a spiritual high is healthy and a necessary ingredient in the human journey. All man’s greatest achievements, his noblest acts, his deepest loves – draw from the soul’s passionate fire.

2) Yet, as with all powerful things, great care must be taken that the spiritual experience doesn’t “burn you up,” but is integrated in your life.

The fire of our souls, like any fire, can be the source of sustenance (healthy fire), or… an inferno (“strange fire”). The challenge is great. The choice is ours.

Therein lies the twofold positive lesson from the children of Aaron, both from their death and “after the death.”

Their death teaches us how not to enter the Holy of Holies uninvited, not to enter at our initiative, at any time we so choose, not to enter as a result of our personal desire; “after the death” teaches us how to enter – “with this shall Aaron enter the holy place” – with utmost humility, with sensitivity and above all, total immersing and sublimating yourself into the experience.

Let us now return to the issue of drugs and alcohol. The essential problem with inducing a (spiritual) high through foreign substances is threefold: 1) It is driven by personal desire, and therefore 2) you have not earned your right of entry, and 3) it will not be integrated into daily life. It will be an escape.

And this is precisely the reason why foreign substances are addictive and take control of your life. As their name implies, they and the altered states of consciousness they induce are foreign substances – a “strange fire” – which don’t belong to you. For a brief, but temporary moment they have the power to transport you to another place. But you don’t belong there and you have not earned your way. Having not paid your fare, the “strange fire” will come back to collect the debt: It will take control of your life until it consumes you.

By contrast, when you earn your right – through the arduous, selfless work of ego-nullification – then the emerging spirituality carries you to great heights.

The formula goes like this: Superficial experiences are just that – experiences that are felt with your sensory tools. Real experiences – love, truth, health, happiness, sexuality, spirituality – are the exact opposite: As soon as you sense them, as soon as become aware of yourself, your needs and your search – you lose the ability to “own” the experience.

Why? Because a real experience is not an experience; it is state of being. Health for example is not a verb, but a noun. It has no sensation. It just is. The same with true love: Love can manifest itself in the senses and be expressed through the senses; but love itself is not an action, but a condition, as is truth and all other inside-out realities.

Spirituality, the spiritual high, is a permanent state of being that lies beneath the surface of existence. The “container” can be artificially forced open with a “strange fire” (foreign substances), but only temporarily. No single act can be done to access the spiritual truths within; no magic can open up your soul. When you selflessly dedicate your life to a higher cause, when you transcend your ego and strip away the forces of material self-interest that impedes access to your soul within, then the spiritual will emerge. The operative word is emerge. You don’t create it, you don’t induce it, you don’t import it; you eliminate the weeds and the flower emerges.

When you try to take control, you lose control. When you let go, you begin to gain control. When you try to contain it, you lose it. When you let it free, it becomes yours.

The soul’s fire manifests in many ways. Perhaps its deepest expression is in the fires of love and sexuality. Like a fire, burning desire can be the root of our noblest acts, but also the source of our most decadent behavior. Sexuality as selfish drive, divorced of intimacy, brings us to the lowest depths; infused with sanctity, intimacy, commitment and integration, it lifts us to the our greatest heights, infusing us with the power to create – allowing us to enter the “Holy of Holies” close to G-d.

But this is paradoxically possible only when our burning desires are not driven solely by human needs. When they are, the same force is rendered into a destructive addiction.

All addictions are a result of a deep void demanding attention. The desperate search for passion will look for an outlet. If the spiritual thirst is not quenched in a healthy way, it will demand nourishment at all costs – even if it means self destructive methods.

Addiction by its very nature means profound dependency. Why would someone get addicted to anything? Why would we need something that badly that we should become addicted to it? True, this may be due to the actual substance itself. Some substances are chemically addictive; they have the power to stimulate and ultimately alter certain chemicals in the brain that creates a compulsive craving and uncontrollable dependence on that substance. But that still doesn’t explain why a particular individual allows him or herself to become addicted. What need is this substance induced altered state serving; what void is it filling?

Addiction demonstrates two things at once: A deep hunger, but the hunger is being sated with a force outside of yourself, trapping you, killing you. The solution is not to eliminate the need (by becoming a passive bore), but to relieve its pangs by feeding it with the surrender to the Divine.

The ultimate relief of the soul’s profound tension is bittul – humble submission to the world of spirit. The greater the soul’s hunger and passion, the more its need for selflessness.

The story of Aaron’s sons teaches us that the spiritual state fills the healthy human need for transcendence. But this healthy need can be filled in unhealthy ways, served by unhealthy tools; the desire can be pure, while the objective of the desire may not be, turning the flame into a firetrap.

From Aaron’s sons we learn why the Torah utterly rejects any induced state of altered consciousness. Besides for the obvious issues of health, addiction and complying with the law – all fundamental concerns in the Torah – the mere fact that one turns to a “strange fire” to access spirituality (even if the experience was in some ways genuine) reflects the abovementioned distortions: A yearning driven by self-interest, unearned, escapist and non-integrative.

Even when using healthy and natural methods and means to achieve spiritual highs, the key lies in your actual attitude and drive: If transcendence becomes another extension of yourself, and is driven by your need or desire to get high, then even if you use healthy methods, ultimately transcendence will elude you. Only when you realize that you have to let go – let go of your drives, needs and even hunger – then the spiritual high will emerge.

And then, its will also be an integrative experience instead of an escape. It will open you up to spiritual freedom, instead of becoming an addictive monkey on your back.

Ecstasy that is driven by human politics is politics not ecstasy; ethereal perhaps, but still man-made. Spirituality on human terms not on spiritual terms.

The fire of the soul is our greatest asset. The passion that burns in the unfettered spirit can overcome any challenge. Yet, our success in harnessing these powerful flames is in direct proportion to our humility and selflessness in appreciating them. And carefully protecting and nurturing these flames.

The question we must always ask is twofold:

Are my fires burning?

What will I do with these fires – will I indulge myself in them or will I allow them to lift me and the world around me to greater places?

* * *

Question of the Week: Do mind altering drugs help or impede the spiritual search?

April 26, 2018
How to Cope with Grief
Amidst the powerful and conflicting emotions of grieving, it can be difficult to step back and see the big picture. Grief is a necessary catharsis for the release and relief of the pain resulting from the death of a loved one. But how does one grieve in a healthy way? Like all experiences of emotional pain, you have a choice to go through it not as a negative experience, but as an opportunity for growth — albeit painful growth. Feelings are feelings, but we can choose whether to experience them in a destructive or productive light. The following four suggestions for how to face grief are based on the 4000-year-old Kabbalistic tradition, which emphasizes thoughtfully and compassionately learning from every experience you have in life. (Obviously, these suggestions do not replace the elaborate process necessary to heal from pain, which may also require the help of a professional).

Remember: The Soul Never Dies

Modern physics has taught us that no substance truly disappears, that it only changes form. A tree, for instance, might be cut down and used to build a house, or a table, or a chair. And when that same wood is burned in a furnace, it again changes form, becoming an energy that gives off heat and gas. The tree, the chair, and the fire are all merely different forms of the same substance. If this is the case with a material substance, it is even more so with a spiritual substance. The spiritual life-force in man, the soul, never disappears; upon death, it simply changes from one form to another, higher form.

While death represents the soul’s elevation to a higher level, it nevertheless remains a painful experience for the survivors, who cannot feel the soul’s continued journey, and therefore grieve and mourn over their loss of connection. At the same time, it must serve — as must all experiences in life — as a lesson. We must see death not as a negative force, but as an opportunity for growth.

Look At Your Life Carefully

“The living shall take to heart” says Ecclesiastics. It might seem selfish, but it is an honor to the person who passed away to use the opportunity to examine your own life. Death reminds you to think about and appreciate your life. Do you have a personal mission statement? How well are you fulfilling it? Remember the things that your loved one accomplished during his or her life, how he treated his family and friends, how she helped others. You can use the strong emotions of grief to jolt yourself out of apathy and continue the legacy of your loved one.

Initiate Positive Projects in the Memory of Your Loved One

A powerful tradition, which also serves as a catharsis to the pain of loss, is to channel the grief into positive actions: 1) Inspire others by sharing with them the good things that your loved ones did. 2) Create new initiatives — or perhaps a charitable and educational institution — in the honor and memory of a loved one. Do not be concerned by the size and scope of the initiative. Never underestimate the power of small, local, and even micro projects. Any good deed you do in the memory and honor of your loved ones transforms grief into positive energy — most notably it perpetuates the spiritual vitality of the deceased. It accesses the eternal nature of the soul, and manifests it in this physical world.

Do Not Try to Explain

Death is beyond human comprehension. After all the rationalizations and explanations, the heart still cries. And it should cry. Although we should not mourn longer than necessary, it is still important to grieve. Soothe and console yourself in the healthiest ways that you can. Allow the pain to seep through you. There is nothing anyone can really say that will explain away the pain of mourning, for no matter how you might try a brilliant mind cannot console a bleeding heart. Silence is often the most appropriate way to experience and express pain. As one great teacher told his grieving student: “I don’t have answers for your. But I can cry with you.”

Go deeper into this subject: Toward a Meaningful Life | How to Relieve Your Emotional Pain | The Kabbalah of Crying | Death & Grieving | Passing Away: Where Does the Soul Go When You Die?
Join the Soul Gym to Unlock Your Trapped Potential
Get free exercises to your inbox for self-mastery and growth.
Name*
First Last
Email*
SOULGYM I MASTERCLASS
Live with Rabbi Simon Jacobson
From Mortality to Immortality: The Soul’s Ongoing Story”
Wednesday, November 12, @8:30pm
Live Stream | Podcast

Add to Calendar
January 24, 2018
Simchat Torah: Through Water and Fire

By Mendel Jacobson

Simchat Torah 5730, 1969.

A young 14-year-old boy is keenly watching a man dancing as if there are no worries in the world. His legs pump in a rhythm only his soul could produce. He looks like a flame, flickering on and on, reaching for a place beyond anything he has ever known. Wow, the boy thinks to himself, “how could that man be so happy?”

“Which man?”

Startled, the 14-year-old boy didn’t realize he’d asked that question aloud.

“Which man?” His father asks him again.

“That man,” the young boy points to the whirling dancer. “He must be the happiest man on earth.”

As his father looks to where his son is pointing and he sees the black-bearded man with five children in tow, his eyes fill with tears and he sighs. “That man lost his young wife just six days ago.”

“But then how can he be so happy, how can he possibly dance like that?”

“Because today is Simchat Torah and it is a mitzvah to dance and to be happy. This is what a Jew does; this is what a real Chassid does.”

Although this story happened before I was born, I have heard it many times.

The year was 5730, 1969, and, on the second day of Sukkot, a young 42-year old man lost his wife to leukemia. As was the custom instituted by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, every year, on Simchat Torah, hundreds of Chassidim would walk near and far to celebrate with Jews in Synagogues across New York. This man was one of those Chassidim. Each year Simchat Torah he would take his young children to a small shul in East Flatbush where they would dance with the Torah and rejoice with the community. That year, 1969, the young man did the same. The children’s grandmother, their mother’s mother, dressed them in their finest clothing and sent them off with their father to East Flatbush.

It was there, in that little shul, that this dialogue between father and son took place.

After the dancing was over in East Flatbush, the young man and his children walked back to Crown Heights. He dropped his younger children off at home with their grandmother and hurried to 770 where the Lubavitcher Rebbe was in midst of a farbrengen. Every year on Simchat Torah, before hakofot, the Rebbe would speak for a number of hours, discussing the intricate energies of Simchat Torah and hakofot. The farbrengen would consist of several talks, each one punctuated by the singing of a niggun, a Chassidic melody sometimes dating back hundreds of years. The man of whom we are speaking was the one who began the niggunim at the Rebbe’s farbrengens.

The shul at 770 Eastern Parkway was packed from floor to ceiling; people were clinging to bleachers and rafters just as they did to the Rebbe’s every word. As the Rebbe finished one segment of his talk, the crowd looked to the new widower to begin a song. What happened next was one of the most dramatic experiences in the lives of those who attended that gathering. A rare moment of truth…

Through the hush of thousands of people, a gentle but defiant voice began to sing:“Mi vadiom nye patonyem, ee v’agniom nye s’gorim,” a vibrant Chassidic Russian melody meaning, “We in water will not drown, and in fire will not burn.” The Rebbe looked up and stared at the man – with a piercing, knowing gaze that is impossible to describe. Suddenly the Rebbe sprang up from his chair, pushing it back with such force that it nearly fell over. The Rebbe began dancing in his place, rocking up and down, swaying back and forth, with incredible intensity and passion. Witnesses say that in all the years the Rebbe never danced – never before and never after – quite like that.

As the Rebbe swung his arms, leading the singing, the crowd became more and more energized, chanting in unison, “We in water will not drown, and in fire will not burn; we in water will not drown, and in fire will not burn.” Faster and faster they chanted, as if in a trance.

People present later described the unbelievable sight of this fragile man who had just experienced utter devastation, swinging back and forth – surrounded by waves of people, being led by the Rebbe himself – singing: “We in water will not drown, and in fire will not burn,” nothing can vanquish our spirit – as if G-d had not just taken his wife, as if he was the happiest man alive.

Everyone melted in the dance and the song. The joy and the tears all dissolved into one transcendent dance; a dance that captured the essence of joy and pain, ecstasy and agony – the indestructible core of life itself. At that moment everything and nothing made sense. “Mi vadiom nye patonyem, ee v’agniom nye s’gorim,” “We in water will not drown, and in fire will not burn.”

Moments like that become frozen in time.

~~~

Fast-forward 20 years:

A phone call comes in to a major Jewish children’s organization in Crown Heights, Tzivos Hashem.

“Hello,” the voice on the other end of the line says. “I am so-and-so and I would like to sponsor children’s programs for Simchat Torah,”

“Ok, sure,” the man working in the organization happily replies. “But, if I may ask, why do you have this particular interest in children’s programs for Simchat Torah?”

“Well, you see, when I was a boy, every Simchat Torah my father and I would go to a small shul in East Flatbush to celebrate. One year, when I was fourteen, as I was watching the few people dancing in a circle, I noticed one man who looked so happy, as if everything in the world was perfect. I stood there transfixed, wondering how this man could exude so much joy. I asked my father this question, and my father told me that I should know this man just lost his wife but, because he is a real Chassid and the Torah says to be happy on Simchat Torah, he is happy. This made a very big impression on my 14-year-old mind – that a Jew could put aside all his pain and suffering and be happy just because it’s a mitzvah to be happy was unbelievable to me – so I decided I would like to help other children celebrate the happiness and joy of Simchat Torah.”

~~~

Fast-forward another 17 years:

On the 23^rd of Cheshvon, 5767, 2006, the man of this story, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Gansbourg, the one who lost his wife in 1969, rejoined her in the Garden of Eden. Yet, his (and her) grandchildren, their “life,” live on. They have built families and communities, changed people’s lives, and continue to make the world a better place.

The story of the young man has taught me much: even in the saddest of times, even when all seems lost, with a little joy, a little dance, everything can change.

And it’s true, “We in water will not drown, and in fire will not burn.”

How do I know? you may ask. Because I myself am living proof. You see, my mother was the youngest of those five children that walked with their father to that small shul in East Flatbush those 41 years ago.

October 1, 2015

Productive Grieving

By the Grace of G-d
5 Tammuz 5743
Brooklyn, NY

Blessing and Greeting:

I have just received your letter of 3 Tammuz.

To begin with a blessing, may G-d grant that henceforth you and all your family should have only goodness and benevolence – in the kind of good that is revealed and evident.

At the same time, you must make every effort to regain the proper state of mind, despite the pain.

You should remember the teaching and instruction of the Torah which is called Toras Chayim, Guide in Life, and Toras Emes, the Torah of Truth, meaning that what it teaches is not just to ease the mind, but the actual truth. Thus, the Torah, taking into account human nature/feelings in a case of bereavement, and the need to provide an outlet for the natural feelings of sorrow and grief, prescribes a set of regulations and period of mourning.

At the same time the Torah sets limits in terms of the duration of the periods of mourning and the appropriate expression, such as shiva (the first seven days), shloshim (thirty days), etc. If one extends the intensity of mourning which is appropriate for shiva into shloshim, it is not proper, for although shloshim is part of the overall mourning period, it is so in a lesser degree. And since the Torah says that it is not proper to overdo it, it does no good for the neshama [soul] of the dearly departed. On the contrary, it is painful for the neshama to see that it is the cause for the conduct that is not in keeping with the instructions of the Torah.

A second point to bear in mind is that a human being cannot possibly understand the ways of G-d. By way of a simple illustration: An infant cannot possibly understand the thinking and ways of a great scholar or scientist – even though both are human beings, and the difference between them is only relative, in terms of age, education and maturity. Moreover, it is quite possible that the infant may someday surpass the scientist, who also started life as an infant. But the difference between a created human being and his Creator is absolute.

Therefore, our Sages declare that a human being must accept everything that happens, both those that are obviously good and those that are incomprehensible, with the same positive attitude that “all that G-d does is for the good,” even though it is beyond human truths is that the neshama is part of G-dliness and is immortal. When the time comes for it to return to Heaven, it leaves the body and continues its eternal life in the spiritual World of Truth.

It is also a matter of common sense that whatever the direct cause of the separation of the soul from the body (whether a fatal accident, or a fatal illness, etc.), it could affect only any of the vital organs of the physical body, but could in no way affect the spiritual soul.

A further point, which is also understandable, is that during the soul’s lifetime on earth in partnership with the body, the soul is necessarily “handicapped” – in certain respects – by the requirements of the body (such as eating and drinking, etc.). Even a tzaddik [holy man], whose entire life is consecrated to Hashem, cannot escape the restraints of life in a material and physical environment. Consequently, when the time comes for the soul to return “home,” it is essentially a release for it, as it makes its ascent to a higher world, no longer restrained by a physical body and physical environment. Henceforth the soul is free to enjoy the spiritual bliss of being near to Hashem in the fullest measure. This is surely a comforting thought!

It may be asked: if it is a “release” for the soul, why has the Torah prescribed periods of mourning, etc. But there is really no contradiction. The Torah recognizes the natural feeling of grief that is felt by the loss of a near and dear one, whose passing leaves a void in the family, and the physical presence and contact of the beloved one will be sorely missed. So the Torah has prescribed the proper periods of mourning to give vent to these feelings and to make it easier to regain the proper equilibrium and adjustment.

However, to allow oneself to be carried away by these feelings beyond the limits set by the Torah – in addition to its being a disservice to one’s self and all around, as well as to the neshama, as mentioned above – would mean that one is more concerned with one’s own feelings than with the feelings of the dear neshama that has risen to new spiritual heights of eternal happiness. Thus, paradoxically, the overextended feeling of grief, which is due to the great love of the departed one, actually causes pain to the loved one, since the neshama continues to take an interest in the dear one left behind, sees what is going on (even better than before), rejoices with them in their joys, etc.

One thing the departed soul can no longer do, and that is, the actual fulfillment of the mitzvoth, which can be carried out only jointly by the soul and body together in this material world. But this, too, can at least partly be overcome when those left behind do a little more mitzvoth and good deeds in honor and for the benefit of the dear neshama.

More could be said on the subject, but I trust the above will suffice to help you discover within you the strength that G-d has given you, not only to overcome this crisis, but also to go from strength to strength in your everyday life and activities in full accord with the Torah.

In your case, there is an added G-d-given capacity, having been blessed with lovely children, long may they live, with a strong feeling of motherly responsibility to raise each and all of them to a life of Torah, chuppah [marriage], and good deeds, with even greater attention and care than before, and in this, as in all good things, there is always room for improvement.

Now to conclude with a blessing, may G-d grant you much Yiddishe nachas [Jewish happiness] from each and all your children, raising them to Torah, chuppah, and good deeds in good health and peace of mind, and in comfortable circumstances.

With blessing,

[signature]

P.S. I do not know if you were aware of it when writing your letter on 3 Tammuz. But it is significant that you wrote the letter on the anniversary of the beginning of the geula [redemption] of my father-in-law of saintly memory – an auspicious time for geula from all distractions and anxieties, to serve Hashem wholeheartedly and with joy.

August 4, 2015

The Rebbe’s Memory?

On one occasion, my father-in-law, the Rebbe said:

“I do not add nishmato eden (‘his soul is in Eden’) to my father’s name – I am not about to assign him an ‘address.’ Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, Father has not departed.”

I feel the same regarding my father-in-law, the Rebbe. Who can possibly assign him an “address” in heaven?! Who can possibly establish his place as being in “Eden,” be it the “Lower Eden,” or the “Higher Eden,” or any other heavenly abode, no matter how sublime? And why shall we dispatch him to the supernal yonder? He certainly doesn’t want to part from us!

Likewise, I do not add zecher tzaddik livrachah (“may the memory of the righteous be for blessing”) to my mention of the Rebbe. The concept of “memory” applies only to something of the past, to something that is susceptible to forgetting. Regarding our relationship with the Rebbe, forgetting is not a possibility; so there is no point in speaking of the Rebbe’s “memory,” just as one would not speak of the “memory” of a person who manifestly lives amongst us.

From an address by the Rebbe, Sivan 25, 5710 (June 10, 1950)

Adapted from the teachings of the Rebbe by Yanki Tauber

August 4, 2015
The Quest

And Korach took… two hundred and fifty men of the children of Israel—leaders of the community, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown. And they massed upon Moses and Aaron and said to them: “Enough! The entire community is holy and G-d is amongst them; why do you raise yourselves above the congregation of G-d?”

…And Moses said to Korach: “Hear, I pray you, sons of Levi! Is it not enough for you that the G-d of Israel has set you apart from the community of Israel to bring you close to Him—to perform the service in the Sanctuary of G-d… that you seek also the priesthood?”

Numbers 16:1-10

Moses said to them: “Among the religions of the world there are various customs, and they do not all gather in the same house [of worship]. We, however, have but one G-d, one Torah, one law, one Kohen Gadol and one Sanctuary; yet you, two hundred and fifty men, all desire the Kehunah Gedolah?! I, too, desire it…”

Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5

Moses was the essence of truth.[1] When he told Korach, who was protesting the appointment of Aaron as the sole Kohen Gadol (High Priest) and the only one allowed to perform the most sacred services in the Holy Temple, that “I, too, desire it,” this was no mere debating tactic. Moses truly desired the position of Kohen Gadol for himself. But if this were the case, was he not guilty of the very sin for which Korach and the 250 men who joined him in his spiritual mutiny were so severely punished?

The difference, however, is obvious: Moses desired to be a Kohen Gadol; Korach and his company acted to appropriate the station for themselves. Moses yearned for the ultimate level of intimacy with G-d; Korach and his company acted to realize this yearning by performing the most sacred of divine services—the offering of the ketoret (incense)—which is forbidden to a non-kohen.

This was not the first time that someone had acted on such a striving to tragic results: Aaron’s two sons, Nadav and Avihu, “came close to G-d and died” when they offered the ketoret without divine sanction.[2] Korach and his fellows knew what had happened to Nadav and Avihu, but this did not deter them in their quest to become Kohanim Gedolim, if only for the briefest moments. So great was their desire to “come close to G-d” that they were willing to give up their very lives in the effort.[3]

This explains why an entire section of the Torah (Numbers 16‑18) is named after “Korach”—an unrepentant sinner. For though Korach’s deeds were sinful and destructive, his motivation was meritorious. The story of Korach comes to teach us what not to do—not to act on even the most lofty of ambitions if they are contrary to the will of G-d; but it also comes to tell us that we should desire and yearn for the highest ideals, even those which we are prohibited from actually attaining. In this, we are enjoined to emulate Korach (and Moses)—in not being satisfied with our current spiritual station, even when G-d Himself has imposed it upon us.

The Spiritual Option

What is the Kehunah Gedolah? Simply stated, it is a state of being (or rather, a state of non-being) characterized by an utter negation of one’s own existence. The Kohen Gadol is “segregated [from the people]… sanctified as a holy of holies”[4]; he “never leaves the Sanctuary”[5] and does not partake in the social and civic activities that are integral to a person’s life as an individual and a member of society.[6] His entire being is devoted to maintaining a state of perpetual, self-obliterating attachment to G-d.

It’s not that the Kohen Gadol’s is a spiritual existence while everyone else is bound to the mundanities of physical life; rather, the Kohen Gadol is one who transcends the very notion of a “life”—physical or spiritual—in the sense of personal strivings and achievements. In regard to the spiritual side of life, an entire tribe within the people of Israel—the tribe of Levi—was elected by G-d to serve as the “spiritual leaders” of Israel, serving in the Holy Temple, and as teachers and instructors of Torah. Indeed, Korach and Moses, who yearned for the Kehunah Gedolah but were proscribed from ever achieving it, were both Levites.

Furthermore, the option of choosing a spiritual rather than material life is available to every individual. In the words of Maimonides:

“Not only the tribe of Levi, but any man of all the inhabitants on earth, whose spirit has volunteered and his mind has convinced him to segregate himself to stand before G-d to serve Him, to worship Him and to know Him… and he cast from his neck the yoke of the many calculations that men seek—such an individual becomes sanctified…”[7]

The pursuit of a spiritual life is entirely optional (the prerogative of one “whose spirit has volunteered and his mind has convinced him”) and attainable by all (“any man of all the inhabitants on earth”). In contrast, the pursuit of the Kehunah Gedolah differs in both these respects: it should be desired by everyone, and only a select few—those specifically chosen by G-d[8]—can ever achieve it.

There is only one Kohen Gadol, for G-d “did not create [the world] for chaos; He created it to be settled.”[9] G-d wants us to develop our world—whether it is the material world of the farmer or artisan, or the spiritual world of the scholar or mystic—not to escape it. Nevertheless, He stipulated that there be one human being who personifies utter detachment from any and all “worlds” and utter attachment to Him, and that everyone else should strive for this state even as they are prohibited from actually attaining it.

In other words, our involvement with the world should be accompanied by the desire to transcend it. The Hebrew word for “world,” olam, means “concealment,” for a “world” is a superimposed reality that veils the divine reality. This is also true of the most spiritual of worlds, for every world imposes definition and context upon its inhabitants, thereby obscuring the infinite and undefinable reality of G-d. So whatever world we inhabit, we must carry with us the awareness that it is but a guise, a projection of the divine truth via a finite filter which conceals far more than it reveals and distorts far more than it elucidates.

To actually escape one’s world would be to betray one’s mission in life, which is to unravel the distortion and peel away the concealment. On the other hand, not to desire to escape it means that one accepts—or is at least able to “live with”—the distortion and the concealment, which is likewise a betrayal of one’s mission in life. Indeed, it is the constant striving to escape the strictures of our world that drives our efforts to develop, expand and sanctify the very world we are seeking to escape, and make it a vessel for the divine truth.

Based on the Rebbe’s talks on Shabbat Parshat Korach 5733 and 5734 (1973 and 1974)[10]

Adapted from the teachings of the Rebbe by Yanki Tauber

[1]. Midrash Rabbah, Shemot 32:1.

[2]. Leviticus 16:1; ibid., 10:1-7.

[3]. Cf. Ohr HaChaim commentary on Leviticus 16:1 regarding Nadav and Avihu: “[Theirs was] a death by divine ‘kiss’ like that experienced by the perfectly righteous; it is only that the righteous die when the divine kiss approaches them, while they died by their approaching it…. Although they sensed their own demise, this did not prevent them from drawing near [to G-d] in attachment, delight, delectability, fellowship, love, kiss and sweetness, to the point that their souls ceased from them.”

A similar phenomenon was the case of the Kohanim Gedolim who served in the latter years of the Second Temple when the land of Israel was under Roman rule. Because these men were unworthy of the Kehunah Gedolah, which they received by purchasing it from the Roman procurator, none of them survived their first year in office (Talmud, Yoma 9a; Jerusalem Talmud, ibid. 1:1). Nevertheless, they endeavored to be Kohanim Gedolim, even though they were aware of the fate that had befallen their predecessors.

[4]. I Chronicles 23:13.

[5]. Leviticus 21:12. This is not an across-the-board prohibition for theKohen Gadol to ever leave the Temple, but the designation of the Temple his permanent place. As per Maimonides, the Kohen Gadol went home at night to sleep or to attend to other personal needs, but was otherwise to by found in his suite (lishkah) at all times. Furthermore, the Kohen Gadol’s residence was in Jerusalem, and he was proscribed from ever leaving the holy city (Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Sanctuary’s Vessels and Those Who Serve In It,5:7).

[6]. Ibid., halachot 1-9.

[7]. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Shemittah and Yovel, 13:13.

[8]. Only a descendent of Aaron (a Kohen) can become Kohen Gadol.

[9]. Isaiah 45:18.

[10]. Likkutei Sichot, vol. XVIII, pp. 187-195.

August 4, 2015
Organ Donation: Is it Permitted?

To Rabbi Jacobson

I was just curious why when a Jew gets a driver’s license he is not allowed to donate his organs if the person dies. I know you are not supposed to, but would it not be considered a Mitzvah to save another’s life?

Thanks a lot
Josh
—–

Dear Josh,

Thanks for writing. Even though you write that you are “just curious,” be aware that the answer to your question requires an elaborate discussion.

After this qualification, I will try to give you the short answer:

Our bodies do not belong to us. They are G-d’s gift to us to utilize as a vehicle for our soul’s journey in the material world. We are charged with the responsibility to protect and keep our bodies healthy, and use them to serve the purpose for which they were created. (For more on this see the chapter on Body and Soul and Health and Fitness in my book Toward A Meaningful Life).

We therefore have no right to mutilate, harm or in any way destroy our bodies. Upon death we must return our bodies intact as they were given to us. “Dust you are and to dust you shall return.” This is why cremation and autopsies are prohibited. The body must be returned to G-d as He gave it to us. When someone gives you a gift you return it to him/her intact, not burned or dissected.

The same is true regarding organ donations. Whether we understand it or not, our responsibility is to return to G-d our bodies as intact as we can. It is also clear that G-d would not allow someone to die or be denied health as a result of our not donating our organs.

Needless to say, as it is with all Torah law, different laws apply when there is an immediate life and death situation and a life can be saved by using the organ of someone just deceased. A competent rabbi needs to be consulted to determine the situation on a case by case basis.

However this life and death rule does not apply to general organ donations, which may or may not be used to save a life. Indeed, these organs may just be stored, and in many known instances organs have even been known to be left not used and ultimately discarded. It is also well known that organs are primarily used for research purposes.

The bottom line is that the Torah engenders in us an appreciation for the sanctify of life, the sanctity of both the soul and the body. We must treat our bodies with sensitivity knowing that it is a Divine gift. If our attitude to our bodies is this way after death, how much more so would our sensitivity be to life — our own and others — during lifetime.

I hope this was helpful. Thanks for writing and please write again.

Blessings and best wishes,
Simon Jacobson

July 28, 2015
Assisted Suicide & Dr. Kevorkian

Toward a Meaningful Life with Simon Jacobson
Radio Show Transcript – May 23, 1999

Mike Feder: Today we are going to talk about something that’s been in the news for quite some time, but more so for the last few weeks. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was convicted in Michigan, of charges – I think it was “complicity in murder,” or “murder,” he is now residing in jail, and I’m sure he is appealing.

The issue is assisted suicide and suicide; and the question, I think, is, are you the sole owner of your life – can you do just what you like with your own life?

I’ll just start off with this massive topic, by just asking you an almost factual question, in a way: do you think this man belongs in jail where he is right now? Should he have been convicted?

Rabbi Simon Jacobson: What do you think?

Feder: What I think? I think no, I think committed what I would call a victimless crime. He was invited to help somebody else end their life, the man signed a legal document he went and did it, he did not hurt anybody, anyhow, why is he in jail, that’s the way I see it initially, I’m willing to be persuaded – but that’s the way I see it.

Jacobson: Well, I think the focus of our show probably should not so much to be why he is in jail, but the question you are asking me about who’s life is it anyway, and who controls life, because I think it is more of a legal question about how much he was participating, was he a hired gun, alright, lets say the patient themselves pulled the plug; so – from my point of view it’s not so relevant his complicity in what happened, but rather the philosophy of it, the concept it and I’d rather not comment about the legal aspects of his participation. I will say this from the outset: that it’s probably apparent, but we should discuss it. The issue here is his philosophy of being able to assist; you may put a question: of what kind of doctor is he, and would you trust him with your life?

Feder: You don’t trust him with your life, you trust him with your death! I’m not being facetious…

Jacobson: But I think there is an element here of a difference if was a doctor or not, let’s say if was a spouse, if he is a doctor, does he have a higher standard to live up to, because in a sense he is dealing with delicate issues.

The same question is asked about abortion: you know, some doctors refuse to do abortions not because of any religious reason but because they do not want to be involved in taking a life.They feel their job is to heal and to bring life into the world. So, well, so we are dealing here with somewhat of a tangent: I’d like to focus on the actual topic of whose life is it…

Feder: Now, let me take this moment just to say that we do welcome your calls, and our number here at WEVD for your questions and comments about this issue as we proceed today live in the studio is 212-244-1050. And let me just real quickly before we get into the psychological and philosophical…

Jacobson: Nitty-gritty…

Feder: The nitty-gritty. To get down to the bottom – is in fact, the one thing about, and there are many things about the legal issues that may be interesting enough, but the one thing that is pertinent in the end is that this man intends obviously to get this over with in the Supreme Court and to see if they make it the law of the land. If it becomes the law of the land, to do what he proposes, it actually does intrude on the deeper issues here, because we’ll all be living in a place where this is something anybody can do at any time, that’s why I bring it up.

Jacobson: Well, I think in that it’s a great opportunity to discuss. Because I think many of these stories, this and similar ones, in a way, illuminate and force us to take another look at our perspective on life, and for that matter, on death. So that’s why I really embrace the topic of this nature. I mean, G-d forbid, I’d rather not have to deal with the topic of this nature and discuss it, but I think often these type of poignant events that hit headlines, force us to look at things that sometimes we are uncomfortable with looking at, because we may be ambiguous or ambivalent about some of these issues.

I think we should go straight to that topic, and I wanted to say something about questions, and I know we’ve been doing discussions on the air and so many people have told me, you know, I would like to hear you discussing the talk but I think that in the climate that we live in a world where so many people have questions and have been silenced – I really would love to see the show evolve to a place where – not just in New York but a place where people feel that you can bring to the table your psychological, your spiritual, your religious and your heretical questions. And a place where – since no questions are off limits – where we really look to people, accepting that invitation enthusiastically.

Feder: This is a place where you won’t be told to shut up and go away. Like you were all your life perhaps.

Jacobson: Correct. Now, to our topic. Go for it.

Feder: Now, here’s something, I remember, because I talked about this once on another radio show I did, I remember reading in the paper a year or two ago, there was this case where a man, who was an elderly man, his wife was dying of terminal cancer, she was in a hospital. He apparently had some sort of conference with her, and they agreed, and he came to the hospital, and he killed her – shot her with a shotgun. It was gruesome, but it was over in a second, and he was able to prove later on that she had asked him to do this, and yet he was arrested for murder. He had lived with this woman for 55 years, and they had a wonderful life and very happy marriage. Near the end, the last couple of months of her life, she begged him to do this. And he said he couldn’t see someone he loved suffering like that. When you think about it, if you – now, I don’t want to put you in a personal situation like that – but, you know, if you saw someone that you loved so much, they are your whole life to you, practically. And they begged you to put them out of their misery, could you do anything like that? He did it, and he was let off by a jury. He was charged but he was let off by a jury of his peers.

Jacobson: Well, I understand. I want to distinguish between the legal system and what’s right or wrong, and what I mean by that again the jurisdiction of our constitution and therefore of the courts, is in some ways limited, because they cannot go into the hearts and souls, particularly religious beliefs. But based on the principles of separation between Church and State. So I’m sure that the Founding Fathers had this dilemma: what do you do when there is a conflict, like why is it illegal to commit suicide? And you mobilize the police force, the fire department, anyone you can to stop the guy from jumping from the bridge. That’s law, and you spend money to prevent him from jumping off the bridge, or from committing suicide in any other way. Clearly, clearly there was some type of appreciation that despite the fact that this nation is built on individual rights, including the right of how to live, there was a line drawn – I would argue that almost anyone, even the most liberal of the Civil Liberties Union would argue there is a line to be drawn. Because at certain times when a person is, for instance, harmful to themselves, does society have a responsibility to stop that harm?

Now, I know that is not the only topic that we will be discussing but I just wanted to broaden the issue, because the more complex we see it is, we see it’s not as simple as just a question of “putting someone out of misery”.

I think the question should be phrased – and I come from a certain perspective, which is Torah perspective, a perspective based on G-d, that life is G-d-given, and I say this unabashedly, for a very particular reason, because I think that is the heart the issue: What is life? What is life? What does it mean to live a life of quality life? Is a paraplegic a life of quality? Is a mentally retarded a life of quality? How do we define life – I think the question starts long before the issue of pain. You know, when someone is in the hospital and they attach tubes, the question is, do you put them out of their misery – I think the question begins the moment they’re born. Because how we see life in the beginning, that’s how we treat it later as well. And I think that’s the question, and I’d like to just, you know, just lay down the perspective of Torah on this issue, because it very clearly states, a very strong opinion on this matter, because you’re dealing here not just with how you deal with pain, but how you deal with life in general, how do we value life. And if a person is unproductive and empty, and feels hopeless and aimless, should anyone stop them from hurting themselves? In other words, where do you draw the line and where do you define it?

The Greeks had a custom (and they actually called the Jews barbaric) in the good old days in Greek time. Their approach, when a child was born handicapped, physically or mentally handicapped, they would kill that child, they would throw them down a mountain. I don’t know whether you’re aware of that.

Feder: There are other societies that did this, too.

Jacobson: Right. And the Jews refused to do that, the Jewish people. And the Greeks considered them barbaric! Why put families and people through such misery of seemingly hopeless life? Today I doubt that the Americans would call that, would agree with the Greeks.

Feder: There are some Americans who would agree.

Jacobson: OK, but I’m saying, that the government doesn’t. Let’s put it this way, the majority doesn’t. But that’s not the issue. The issue is not the consensus. I just wanted to point out how the societies have different views on this matter and I go back to the initial point about life, the idea and the sanctity of life. The sanctity of life. If one accepts that life is given to us, as a gift, by G-d, and it’s not from just from biological evolution, which means that it’s subject to the rules of human beings determining what’s convenient and what’s not convenient to them, but if it’s defined by a G-d that give us life as a gift, there are certain consequences of that. And again, as we’ve often done in the show here- I am not discussing G-d at this point right now, I have to come with that as an axiom, because it’s a perspective, and I don’t know if the issue is to prove it or not, the issue is, let’s present the perspective in a legitimate and respectful way. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective and ultimately, it will come down to what resonates, what sounds best, or a person’s acceptance of some faith…

Feder: So, now, in a way, you are talking about the idea, as you’ve mentioned before, of the soul, that is the thing that sort of unites us.

Jacobson: As soon you say that there is a G-d-given life, that life is a gift, essentially you’re saying that there is a soul, for that gift is the soul within the body in a sense – a body, a corpse has no life, it’s inanimate. But let me define. So G-d gives life, meaning that this touches upon the essence of existence itself. Why is there existence? Do we fully – do we have a full answer to that? And why are some of us dealt certain cards in lives and some of us are dealt others? Can we determine what’s more quality than another? Based on the principle that G-d gives life, you must say that each of us, no matter how we live our lives, no matter what type of health situation, no matter what shortcomings, or positive qualities we have, that is a quality life because or some reason that’s part of the big picture, the purpose, the design that G-d intends for each of us. And to say that someone with blue eyes and blond hair, oh, that’s quality life – someone that’s brunette, is not, you know, I’m using a preposterous example because there you don’t find any type of pain or anything like that. So that type of a scenario comes down to: “Yes, G-d chose these different people to have different opportunities, people given different gifts and different challenges”. Sometimes a challenge is very difficult challenges. Can we explain why some children are born to dysfunctional families that are abusive and orphaned at a young age and suddenly their whole life is shattered and the opportunities that every normal child has are taken away from them? Should that child say to themselves: “life isn’t worth living?” We say: no! This is your challenge and you can overcome it. From a G-d perspective, and let me cite Halacha, the Jewish Law, legal statement: your body does not belong to you – this is the statement – that is why self-mutilation is prohibited in Torah Law, not just suicide, touching your body in any way to mutilate it, to harm it. And the reason given for it is, why is it prohibited?

Because this is not your body, its a gift given to you. And if someone gave you a gift and you return it the way it was given to you in the best way that you can, life is a gift, life is not ours to temper with, life is ours to fulfill our destiny and our calling to be the most productive, constructive… Best citizens, best human beings, most spiritual human beings, however you define these virtues. And with that statement said (I know Mike that you want to get something in, but I just want to finish my initial what’s called, my initial, whatever you call it, initial opening statement just to set the tone)

Feder: OK…

Jacobson: Based on that principle, that life is not your own, so self-mutilation, suicide, either self-inflicted or with someone’s help, is not our choice. And we – no matter how painful it may seem, when somebody is lying and living in pain, we don’t understand a lot of things in life. And, perhaps tempering with that, may not be the wisest thing for human beings. We are the creatures…We may not understand all the deepest plans and understand what G-d intends. If we do begin tampering – I’d like to question when you stop, and is there a place when one stops.

Feder: OK, fairly stated. I have a couple of things I want to do in response to that.

But let me just mention one more time, our number is 212-244-1050.

You know before you used the metaphor about cards, you know you got to play with the cards you’re dealt, you know when you play cards, you can fold. Now wait a minute! You can fold, and everybody understands that. There are many kinds of laws in the world and the law of playing with cards is that you can just back out if you think you’re losing or if it’s painful for you of if things are going to go bad for you. You know, you can bring it down to specifics, too. It’s common practice throughout history, everybody knows this, that doctors in hospitals, without making any issue of it, because they arrested, have been acceding to patients’ wishes, even sometimes crossing a line, and not even asking patients when they see them in tremendous agony. They have been killing them, to use a certain word, all that for a long time. Now I just got through reading a book by Stephan Ambrose about WWII. There was and incident where an American soldier was asked by German soldier, who just had both legs blown off, and was dying in tremendous agony and pain – he said that he asked several soldiers to shoot him, but they wouldn’t do it, but one man did it. And he said: “I couldn’t leave the guy lie there, he begged me to end his life”.

You know, it’s a long way between walking around on the earth and whoever G-d or whatever G-d may be, G-d is very far away for a lot of people, maybe some closer to other people than He is to other people. When you’re sitting there, and yourself – let’s put it on a personal basis, I have terminal cancer, I am in tremendous agony or I am in pain, I don’t have the right to say to myself: this is my life, there is nothing ennobling about this, I look like a monster and a wreck, everybody around me can hardly look at me, I don’t even recognize people any more, people are not seeing the person I used to be, I can contribute nothing to anyone, and I am in tremendous pain, I am hurting other people by the position I am in – who is to forbid me to do this? I don’t understand why there should be any law against it. Well, I know this is going in direct conflict with what you said, but that’s my feeling.

Jacobson: The difference – to drive a point home – the difference between what you’re saying and between what I’m saying, is the difference of who defines what you do with your life.

It’s a legitimate perspective, that which you have just articulated, if there is no G-d. If there is no G-d, than you are completely correct. See, there is no one else to talk to, except your own discretion, what you do with your life. And for that matter, let me make the point – you don’t have to use such an extreme example. What happens, a person reaches the age of 45, if their life is broken, they’ve gone bankrupt, and they want to commit suicide? Now you’re sitting with them, and they say: my life is terrible, like, I’ll throw that scenario at you: so you can also argue and you can say, Hey, your life is yours, and you can jump out of the window. I would submit, knowing you a little, you would probably try to persuade the person: look, life is difficult, now it seems that way, people have overcome challenges, lets go out for a coffee, you try to soothe the person. But the person gets into a rational philosophical argument at that point, the same argument can be stated: it’s his life, he chose at that point that his life is not worth living. He is humiliated by his financial situation, as many people did when Wall Street crashed, or many other times, and he is not mentally imbalanced. He is a very ration, very intelligent person. Mental imbalance, you’ll argue, well the person does not understand, so you have to be protective like a child; you won’t just let anyone do whatever.

Obviously, the situation your are addressing, evokes compassion and empathy which I have equally to you – I’m just saying that if you do take the principle of a G-d-given life, then the issue begins much before that person is living in pain in the hospital – it begins when they’re healthy: whose life is it then? What do you do with it? And – so the perspective you’re presenting, I have no problem hearing one that completely conflicts with what I’m saying, I’m just telling you, lets drive the point, the point is, the distinction between what we are saying is, one is based on G-d determines what you do with your life, and the other is based on what you determine what you do with your life.

Now, let me say this: the question is, should our legal system, our constitution intervene there – that’s a very good question. How much should they say and how shouldn’t they? How much – what right do they have? Should they stop people from jumping off the bridge? What do you think about that? People committing suicide. You see, right now the law is: that’s what the police department does.

Feder: Well, that’s based on the assumption (and you mentioned this a couple of times), its based on the assumption that this a country where G-d is important. As you said, that the people who founded this country and throughout our history the concept of G-d, whichever way you look at it, has been important. And, when you take that into account, you say that there is higher power which has given us our lives and we don’t have the right to take it after all. And also, I would talk to that person, I would try very hard to that person. And I have talked people out of doing this. I’ve spent years with some friends of mine off and on, and I’m sure a lot of us, people who are listening have been in this position.

And, we did talk about it. But I’m talking a specific case, with this guy, Kevorkian, we are talking to people who dying already, they are on their way, and are pain at the same time. This is not the same thing as somebody who has had a financial setback.

Jacobson: I understand, but that – the point I’m making is that philosophically it may be the exactly the same, in right intensity and emotional reaction I have the same reaction as you do, but philosophically, you can’t give me a distinction between the two. If life is in your control, you do what you want to do with it, and ultimately, that’s the ultimate decision-maker is the person with their own life. I understand that one is much more extreme than the other. But philosophically, I don’t see the distinction between the two. As I said earlier, where do you draw the line.

Let me just throw one more thing out here. I, too, would have very difficult problem if I saw someone in deep pain and asked me, especially someone I loved — I would not want to be in that position, because, I know that I respect life too much. If I was able to touch that person’s life, I don’t know how, you know, how I would treat other peoples’ lives in different situations. There is an element of sanctity that just comes, and sometimes compassion can be a crime as well.

Feder: So, wait a minute, you said you were trying to get out of it. Obviously, you can’t just get out of the room. Let’s say that somebody is lying in a room, and they say to you: look, you know this is…

Jacobson: Well, I didn’t mean to say get out of it. I didn’t mean to escape it. I mean to say… I wouldn’t want to see that pain, so I shouldn’t be tested in this way. I mean, but I clearly believe that life is not just question of comfort and discomfort.

Feder: So, you would say to this person – what would you say to this person? You’re sitting right there on their bed and they’re saying to you: “Look, you love me, don’t you”? And you say, “Yes, I do”. And they say, “Can you put me out of my misery, can you help me somehow, can you…” – what do you say to that person?

Jacobson: That’s a great question. Let’s take the question coming in. I’ll respond to that afterwards.

Feder: We have a call from Lester, and he says he is from New York! It’s a big city, Lester, so, go ahead, you are on the air. (…) Lester, don’t despair, you can always call back, we are here for you, but don’t do anything rash.

Jacobson: But anyhow, here’s my point: what I would say, going back to our discussion on pain in general, what does one say to a person who is deep in pain? Because there are people who are in pain who are not lying in the hospital. They are five years old or ten years old. What do you say to them? What do you say when they are in such terrible pain. They say, “Please end this”…

Feder: You mean a child says this?

Jacobson: Yes, a child, or teenager. A teenager, and you know clearly that they’re going to come out of this pain.

Feder: Oh, well, that’s different. That a different story. We’re talking about a very specific thing here. There many, and this is not an isolated philosophical abstract thing, we are talking about people every day, there are tens of thousands of people in this country in this situation, right now, while we’re talking, who are dying, they are not going to come out of it, and they’re in pain, and that’s what I’m talking about. I’m narrowing down to specific instances. That’s what Kevorkian is all about. It’s not about people who can be saved, these are people who can’t be saved.

Jacobson: Well, so let me tell me a story. I may have told the story before, but, this is a woman who lives in Toronto, who was exactly in this situation. Terminal illness, and the doctors had given up hope. They were keeping life, sustaining her on life-support. And she was in deep pain for over two years. And she was already agreeing to sign the papers just to release them from anything and just to take her off life-support, and she should pass on. The pain was just too unbearable.

This is a story that happened with me personally because her daughter bought, had a copy of my book “Toward a Meaningful Life”. And she visited her mother (she was from Chicago) in Toronto and read sections that were very soothing and inspiring. There was one line, not one line, one section in the chapter on pain and suffering that did something miraculous. The chapter discusses the issue about pain in life in general. A person who has pain, the pain accumulates, sometimes you make a calculation, if you sat down and made like a business calculation: how much suffering and loss one endures and how much gains one has in life. You may add up that the deficits are much greater than the pluses in your life. And based on that calculation, it may not be worth it!

But if you measure life in a qualitative perspective, not a quantitative, where your life is given to you from Above, that there is a purpose to life and sometimes is unfathomable in its full entirety and scope to us human beings, we see life as more complicated, than the moments of pain and loss, even though they may be more than the moments of joy, all are a part of bigger picture, our lives are perceived in a different way. And a person has to accept that life is a G-d given gift that should be embraced in its entirety.

Let’s take an example: in a computer program, you may see, someone say, hey, what’s the big thing, let’s take out that extra dot, but today we know in modern technology that extra dot can destroy your whole program. The complexity of a leaf is an entire complex molecular structure, atomic structure, so life is much more complicated than what meets the eye.

Feder: In other words, there is no way that we can comprehend the whole big picture.

Jacobson: Exactly. So when you have a person who is born handicapped, where you know that the doctors say this person is going to live their entire life this way…

Feder: And they may be in tremendous pain every day, too…

Jacobson: …in pain, plus psychological pain plus pain to the parents and to the family. Lets put them out of their misery right there. You know, at age one or age two. I mean, I specifically use examples because you see, you try to focus on one particular example and I’m trying to point out that they’re all philosophically under the same headline, so to speak. So, let me tell you the end of the story.

So the woman listening to this, said to her daughter: “I don’t want to be taken off the life support. You keep me alive as long as I can. I want to see you, I want to see your children, I want to stay as long as I can with this life and it’s OK, it’s a gift given to me I’ll endure the pain.

Miraculously, what happened was that she regressed. Her illness left. The doctors attributed this to optimism, to hope. That she wanted to fight, and when you fight, it strengthens your immune system, she wasn’t giving up. Now she’s alive and kicking today, and she is healthy and well. I’d love to have her on the show and ask her this question. Now, I’m not suggesting that every case, there will be a miracle of that nature and that’s a rule, but it’s a philosophy, you see, it’s a way of thinking. And I am looking for the exact words. So here you have a case of a child, who you know will live a life of misery, who will not have opportunities that normal healthy children have, parents will have to suffer psychological pain, financial loss… Let’s forget about the finance, let’s talk about…

The only answer is that life is complex and beyond our understanding. Life,quality of life is not just when we think it’s working, that means it’s working. Now, you feel comfortable, I’m in joy, I’m satisfied – that means my life is working. The Talmud says something interesting: A Tzadik, a righteous person, even after (biological) death is alive, and a wicked person, even in his life time is dead.

Feder: And the meaning is?

Jacobson: The meaning is you can biologically alive and spiritually dead. The meaning is you can biologically alive and walk and talk and you’re healthy and breathe and you have no health problem, but spiritually, or on a virtue level, you can be a horrible human being, and abusive human being. Is that called being alive? So, biologically, of course it is, medically the guy is alive. But – this person could be putting other people in deep, deep psychological misery. Just to show you that the definition of life is a little more complex than just biological life. Then you can have a person who is really suffering, that can barely move, yet their glow, their majesty, can be inspiring to thousands of people.

Now, I don’t understand why that person should be suffering and another person should be walking around healthy, I have no idea why. I don’t understand G-d’s ways. The age-old question: why do the wicked prosper, and the good often suffer? But the fact is that’s part of life’s realities. And it’s not a question, I understand that particular question, that moment, the person is going to die anyway, a day earlier a day later…

Feder: Or a month or two…

Jacobson: … put him out of their misery. But I would say, if you go with that attitude why then not kill mentally retarded or the handicapped child, why then also

Feder: Well the Nazis did exactly that.

Jacobson: In other words, once you tamper with life, where do you stop, where do you stop? And I would be very careful, that governments and laws should not be written in any way that etches in stone. I would rather risk intervening more in protecting life than in saying that, OK, this life isn’t worth it. Because once you do that, all you need in the next government another person says, “you know what? I’ll push the envelope. I think this type of life isn’t worth it”, so I would be very careful. And I think the Founding Fathers did say something: “All men are created equal”. Why created? Because if don’t have a basic principle that they’re created, then maybe they’re not equal?

Feder: So, in other words, if some other force created us, who are we to find out what’s equal and what is not equal?

Jacobson: Exactly. You have no right to say another person is less equal than you are. And that’s what you really dealing with – and yet what is real life? Does everyone have equal right to live? But I think that, based on the principle that I stated earlier, no we don’t have equal right to die, or to die when we want to die. That’s not given to us. Just like it’s wasn’t given to us how to be born or whom to be born to, the same is with the circumstances and time of death.

Feder: Alright, let me just take a break here, we are on a tight schedule here on the radio, let me just re-identify…

You got a fascinating quote from Kevorkian, and I was wondering, would you mind reading it to me right now, because it really gets to the heart of the issues we are talking about.

Jacobson: Yes, actually someone gave it to me as preparation to the show, and someone had downloaded it from the Internet who wanted to really see what he was about. Transcripts from his speeches and his interviews. And the speech that he made to the National Press Club, so in 1996 Kevorkian said: “In ancient Greece this was widely practiced by physicians (“this” meaning obviously assisted suicide). This was widely practiced by physicians, openly. The whole society accepted this as medical practice. You see, they were rational. You are a human body. You are a biological organism like every other biological organism. You bleed when you are cut and when you die, you stink. Now, what’s so sacred about that”.

Feder: Obviously, Mr. Kevorkian is not a religious man!

Jacobson: No, no, but I don’t particularly, frankly, read this quote to make this argument – this just drives the point somewhat, because I could see someone saying – I wont be so gross about it, I’ll be more subtle about it, but when it gets down to it, the fact is, we are just a bacteria, roaming around, crawling around like microbes on this earth, except we are a little more sophisticated than bacteria. We can build fax machines and cellular phones and cable TV’s, but essentially life as valuable as a microbe, and that attitude, that there’s nothing more to life than that – from that attitude, you don’t have to say that when you die, you stink, the way he put it, I find it even repulsive to repeat, but that attitude essentially concludes, yes, that we define what is most comfortable for us, what is called quality life, what is what is called “not quality” life, and that’s one approach.

Another approach is an entirely different one: quoting the Bible that G-d, an architect and engineer that created this Universe that is here by design, by plan, we are part of a complex system. We can make a major difference. We have a destiny, a calling. We are partner with G-d in creation. What you do matters, now and forever. Everything you do is meaningful. Life takes on an entirely different dimension and different meaning that – yes, it’s not just an accident, we are not just another microbe roaming around this earth, but your life is sacred. The word “sacred” means “it’s not in your control” and what is in your control is to take the life and make it as good as possible and help as many people as possible and transform this earth into a place of light instead of a place of darkness.

Feder: Do you know, a lot of people feel that, unfortunately, I’ve known a lot of people who’ve actually committed suicide. That’s just been part of my life experience. A lot of reasons that people commit suicide have something in common and one of them almost always is: they have always felt and still feel that their life is never in their control in the face place – and this is really interesting: based on what you said, that ironically enough, in the very act of killing themselves, they feel, for the first time in their lives, they actually did have some control over what happened to them.

Do you see what I’m driving at here? The people who feel the most despair and who are driven to this are often people who are told by other people, including people who are brought up in religious atmospheres, maybe not a spiritual but a religious one, but they really aren’t in control of their own life, that their life belongs to their parents, or to G-d, or to somebody else. In fact, they say, “Here’s an act of real decision, finally, I’m going to take life into my own hands”.

Jacobson: Well, interesting, and I will say this. I think that what we are discussing are symptoms of a deeper distortion from a life-view point. I believe, and I think I’ve stated many times, that often G-d and religion are presented to children and students in a way that is completely distorted, which is that G-d controls your life. Blind faith – when I make the statement that G-d gave us life, I do not mean that we are absolved of responsibility. This is a two-way street, it’s a partnership. You see, what I’m talking about, is a freeing experience and not a limiting one. G-d being part of our lives is not meant to be, that we have no say and no partnership. On the contrary, it makes it more incumbent upon us, because we have a very serious partner called G-d. This isn’t a game. This isn’t like, “Who cares one way or another?” The stakes are very high, there’s a real higher purpose to your life, that’s the point.

Unfortunately, the people that you are describing, their G-d is not of a higher purpose. Their G-d is about angering the Father in Heaven, who gives us guilt and curses us and punishes us, limits us. It’s not perceived as self-actualization and being the best that you can be; it’s not empowering. As a result, I can see, many people growing up in that type of constricting environment who will say finally, I have control over my life. It’s a real symptom of a real deeper malady of a deeper problem which is the celebration of life is absolute when it’s G-d-given. It is not just that I will be here and breathe freely and I can dance. We have been given the biggest gift of all, which is life on this earth. You can make a real difference. This is supposed to be a freeing, uplifting and empowering experience. When you know that, then when the pain does come your way, you see it differently. You don’t see it as “my comfort is the bottom line”, you see it as “my purpose is the bottom line” and you feel blessed to be part of that higher plan that you’ve been chosen to be part of that important plan. The most important project that ever existed!

You, Mike Feder, and every listener, were chosen to be part of a very big project, OK? And you know that, it’s in your gut, it’s in your blood. You’ve been told that by your parents, by society, I’m just giving you the scenario.You’ve been chosen for this project and how you behave, and every detail of your behavior makes a difference, you know? You are not just an extra, you’re indispensable. Now there is a setback, something doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to. It could be pain, it could be loss, it could be trauma.

Feder: It could be repeated over many years

Jacobson: Yes! But you know in your gut that you are here for that higher project. So what do you think? There are two options: 1) I quit, I’m going to leave this project or 2) No, I’m going to go through it because this is a gift and I may not understand all the challenges that are given to me, but I want to see it through, I’m part of this. Now, if you don’t feel that you are part of a special project called life, as soon as there is some type of setback, you don’t see any benefits. What’s the benefit of life? What gift is it?

I often use an example: if someone offers you a 100 pounds of stones to carry across the street, you would decline, right? You don’t need the stones, you don’t need to exert yourself. But if someone says to you there’s a 100 pounds of diamonds carried across the street, not only will you embrace that, but you’ll ask for 200 pounds of diamonds. Now, 100 pounds of stones does not weight more than 100 pounds of diamonds, but there’s value to the diamonds, its worth the exertion. You don’t need stones. I don’t think people are afraid of burden, but if people do not see that there’s a benefit to it, that’s what happens, there’s no benefit in life, there’s no value, I don’t understand the value of life, therefore, when a challenge comes our way, I can argue that many, many people, should they be challenged in a very serious way, would easily relinquish their life, because you know why? Because even when they’re healthy, they don’t see absolute value in life, you see what I’m saying?

The point that I’m making here, is that it doesn’t begin with suicide, it doesn’t begin with when things are not working right. It begins when things are working right, when things are going well. I would like to ask someone when things are going well, they’re making money, they’re healthy, their family is well, everything is well. Ask them, how valuable is your life, how much do you cherish, how much do you celebrate? So I’m sure everyone will have good words to say. But let’s dissect it: and how much worth is it to you to remain in this life? So when things are going well, everyone is saying, no matter what, “Oh, this is the greatest thing, it’s a great blessing”. But the fact remains that when there is a challenge, suddenly, we have to force ourselves, like an eclipse of the sun, forces you to look at the sunlight in a new way, you suddenly see: “One second, how valuable is life to me anyway?” And I would argue that the real problem is how valuable is life,not so much the choice to commit suicide.

Feder: And I would suppose that the reason that you put this book together in the first place, that you had the Meaningful Life Center is that you are trying to tell people, obviously, that there is a meaning in life and the reason that you have this radio show is that you want to let people know in advance that there is a meaning to their life before it all starts to fall apart.

Jacobson: Preventive medicine, that’s called. Because the most preventive thing that you can give to you children, literally, is that they matter, that they are meaningful, and that they are absolutely indispensable. Because once that exists, everything else follows. And if that foundation doesn’t exist, or is eroded, that everything else if more or less like glamour show. Yes, thing are going well, we’re playing out the game, but, the bedrock, the foundation is missing, which is that I’m needed here.

Feder: Did you ever convince anybody of this personally in your life?

Jacobson: I’m trying to convince you!

Feder: Well, you know, we have a few years here… Good luck to you, that what I have to say. But really, has anybody ever come up to you and said…

Jacobson: That’s a good question, I’ll respond to that.

Feder: I mean these are words – they are good words, but you know…

Jacobson: Well, let me say this: I’ve never convinced anybody of anything, frankly, because I dont believe life is about debates and convincing people of something. People have to convince themselves. I think what you can do is present the people with another option that the secular society, or, lets say, the random forces of our education have now provided us. I believe in the power of resonance. I believe that deep down, everyone has a soul, and they are absolutely significant and indispensable, but society does everything possible, I don’t mean intentionally, to depersonalize us, so we are like statistics, one of billions, you know, you are statistics on someone’s balance sheet, you value is measured by your looks, your youth, your productivity, your buying power.

So, what I believe, and here’s where I have been successful, is putting or offering people the other option, and let people embrace it on their own, in their own way. I don’t believe in convincing…

Feder: The other option is that there is meaning beyond and beneath all these other things.

Jacobson: Yes, the other option is that you are indispensable. You matter, absolutely, your life is gift, it’s given to you, and you have the opportunity, every difficulty in life is a challenge that you have an opportunity to overcome.

Feder: I took the subway down to the show – you have lot of work ahead of you.

Jacobson: Well, as I said, I think, you see, if it was an issue of convincing people, then you’re right, but it lies at the heart of everyone’s deepest instincts, then I think it’s just a question of uncovering it and helping people to get rid of some of the debris that doesn’t allow it to emerge.

Feder: I believe it is true that everybody in their heart, if they haven’t been too far gone, let’s say, really does want to believe that there is something real special about them? Should we try to get a call here? Hello, you are on the air.

Jack: OK, I just wanted to say that I found your position incredible that you thought it would be so difficult for the rabbi to convince people that living the life in this way is something that’s worth the pain and the effort that’s involved. I’m 37 years old, and, you know, I’ve seen a lot of things, I’ve lost my mother. G-d bless, my grandmother is 89 years old, and the pain that she feels every time when I talk to her about my mother is more than palpable. But – life is sweet and we have things to do here and responsibilities. And this a woman who is very simple and believes deep down in her soul that there’s more than – that there is a purpose than just the day to day going through the steps, that there is a reason and a purpose, and that when you do that, everything is totally different.

Feder: Well, I appreciate your comments, Jack. Do you have a question or just wanted to…

Jack: No, no, I was a little taken aback at the negativity that I heard.

Feder: You mean from me, no?

Jack: Well, kind of, not from the rabbi.

Feder: In a way, that’s sort of my job here. And I’m not going to say that I’m lying when I say that and I’m not going to say that my job is to be negative but I do have a lot of questions about this, I mean I have seen people close in my life go through excruciating agony, both physical and mental over a period of time, over decades sometimes. People have expressed to me that they hadn’t any idea why they were alive and they couldn’t stand it any more and I think it all depends on how you want to approach this, I mean people have said to me “I can’t stand it, I want to end my life”. I have never told anyone that it’s a good idea and I have tried to talk people out of it many times, and I am involved in this occasionally. Even now, sometimes, people talk to me.

Jacobson: I’m glad that I’m getting callers that support my position rather than yours.But I think just in defense of Mike; he is presenting a different point of view, he has to represent a certain viewpoint of people who are perhaps skeptical, but your words are very encouraging, and thank you for your phone call.

Feder: We have about one minute left before we start approaching, we are beginning our descent into the end of the program here. You are listening to Rabbi Jacobson and I’m Mike Feder and the topic has been today the Kevorkian-assisted suicide. And suicide – are you the soul owner of your life.

I’ll tell you real quick – because we have very little time here – a story. My mother committed suicide. She was mentally ill and had tried many times in her life to commit suicide; real attempts, and some false attempts. And finally she did. And I’ll tell you, I went out there that very morning that she committed suicide, and I sat next to her in the bed. She was young, she was not physically ill, she was relatively young when she did that (I wasn’t so old myself). And I sat down next to her and I had two feelings. Now, I’ll just tell you this, and I’m interested to hear what your reaction is. Not to make it so abstract, but… first of all, all of her life, she had been trying… she had felt so distraught, and so, and life was so meaningless to her, that she had told many people that she wanted to end her life. And a lot of people finally were convinced that her life was so terrifying to her and so awful that would be a blessing for her not to have to endure this every day of her life. She suffered terribly for decades on end.

And I sat down next to the bed, and I looked at her, and I had two things that occurred in my mind. I spoke out loud to her, whatever was left there, and I said: first of all, I admired the fact that she finally took her life and I’ll tell you the truth, this is how I felt: that she took her life in her own hands, and finally, instead of begging doctors to give her the right pills, and asking people to help her out, to try to get other people to do thing to live a new life, she finally said “I can’t stand this pain anymore, it’s been going long enough, 30-40 years, I’m going to take it in my own hands and do this”. And I admired her, at that moment, for her courage.

And the next thing I thought was,”How can you do this to me? Is this a lesson? Am I supposed to understand this now, too? And just to follow up, real quick. In my life, I have also contemplated this awful thing. And I was convinced not to do it, that I have children, and this is not a legacy that I can leave to them. And in this case I’m not having a debate with you, I’m merely repeating something which may be of some value. And it wasn’t that I thought that someone has created me and that I had a higher purpose, but in a way it was, it was because I thought that this was not a legacy that I could pass on to my children the way my mother passed that on to me. And I leave that with you, I don’t know, you know, where that goes but, it’s a complicated thing when this happens, we don’t want people that we love to suffer, but there is something else going on.

Jacobson: It’s very complicated. And I am quite overwhelmed, actually. I feel your pain, in a way, and I am sure everyone listening does. It’s hard to respond rationally and philosophically to something of this nature. You are dealing here with deep deep emotional despair and – and no one should ever know anything of this type of – where you feel there is no other option.

Speaking to you, who’s seen that and experienced it and what you’ve just shared, all I can say is that you are sacred by the mere fact that you made this choice not to leave this legacy with your children. I would not judge your mother, and I would not judge anyone. I would not judge the situation, because it’s not my job, just like it’s not our job to take our lives, it’s also not our job to judge people. There is a G-d for that. It is between the person and G-d.

I will say this: that the fact that you made such a choice is a very strong and noble act, and you may not have been persuaded by our creator, but the fact that you feel that that’s a legacy for your children shows that there’s value to life. It’s not just meaningless – “I do what I want, and who cares what happens next”. You care enough for your children to know that you don’t want to leave them such an option. And I’m not, I don’t even know if that’s rational, I don’t know if you can rationalize it. Let’s say your children ask you. They say, hey, the pain may be too powerful, but – I’ll tell you this: we are touching here on one of the darkest areas of life. When a person, putting yourself in the shoes of a person who is about to hurt themselves in that way, meaning – and they are rational…

Feder: I don’t know how rational they are

Jacobson: Well, rational I mean to say that they are not, you know… I’ll tell you the worse scenario, when a person made a calculated decision that it’s not worth it. It’s such a dark moment – but I have to go back and I say can’t venture there, I don’t want to stand in that place. I’d like to stand a step before he reaches that door. That’s what we’re discussing here and that is how do you infuse people with that value and cherishing of life that they celebrate it despite its difficulties. That’s really the challenge that I think our show is about.

If I were on the phone with someone who was about to who knows what I would take a different course, you do anything possible to give them some hope, but if you have the time and you have your children before you and you have your students and you have people you can reach, preventive medicine, we live in a society where I’m shocked more people don’t start questioning the value of their own lives. But, you see, we have many distractions, things that keep us busy and thank G-d that he blesses us with health, but I have to say is that a show like this, in my opinion it’s a failure if it doesn’t infuse people with the confidence that you matter and with all the difficulties in life that it’s all part of a bigger picture and never to give up – you could see it through.

Feder: Nothing to improve on that, You’re listening to Rabbi Simon Jacobson, and this is “Toward a Meaningful Life” with Simon Jacobson, and this is Mike Feder and we’ll be on next week.

I want to mention that we’re very grateful that this show was underwritten by Mary Ellen McCarthy and David and Lilly Hollander in honor of the upcoming wedding of Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson and

Esti Shlomo, and in honor of Yosef’s parents, Gershon and Sylvia. And we thank them very much for bring this program to the listeners. Thirty seconds left.

Jacobson: Well, lets conclude on an upbeat note. The issue here is the celebration of life. Tomorrow morning, if everyone would say, that Modeh Ani that I once suggested acknowledging to G-d that G-d gave you a great gift called life and that life, and how you choose to live it, can make a positive difference on people’s lives, is the best antidote, and the strongest infusion of hope that we can give to someone in this lifetime.

July 28, 2015
The Decree

And G-d spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: This is the decree (chok) of the Torah …. If a person should die in a tent, all that enter the tent and all that is in the tent shall be tamei (ritually impure) for seven days…. And for the contaminated person they shall take from the ashes [of the Red Heifer]…

Numbers 19:1-2, 14-17

The law of the “Red Heifer,” which instructs how to purify a person from the ritual impurity caused by contact with a dead body, is often cited as the ultimately supra-rational divine decree. King Solomon, the “wisest of men,”[1] said of this mitzvah:

“All [of the Torah’s commandments] I have comprehended. But the chapter of the Red Heifer, though I have examined it, questioned it and searched it out-I thought to be wise to it, but it is distant from me.”[2]

There are, indeed, many aspects to the law of the Red Heifer which defy rationalization. In the first place, the very phenomenon of “ritual purity” is a mystical, supra-rational concept. The purification process, which is achieved by sprinkling the ashes of a Red Heifer upon the contaminated person, follows no logic we can see. And then there are the internal inconsistencies in the law, such as the fact that while the sprinkling of the ashes purifies the contaminated person, it renders impure the one who did the sprinkling.

But there are other laws in the Torah which are no less elusive to human reason. In fact, there exists an entire category of mitzvot, called chukim (“decrees”), whose defining criteria is that they cannot be comprehended by the mortal mind. What is it about the law of the Red Heifer that makes it the archetypal “decree,” the mitzvah of which G-d says: “This is the chok of the Torah”?

Moses Turned Pale

The Midrash tells us that Moses was the only human being who was granted an understanding of the law of the Red Heifer. “To you,” G-d said to Moses, “I shall reveal the meaning of the Heifer; to everyone else it is a chok.”[3] Yet Moses, too, experienced great difficulty in accepting this law, as we see from the following Midrashic account:

In everything that G-d taught Moses, He would tell him both the manner of contamination and the manner of purification. When G-d came to the laws concerning one who comes in contact with a dead body, Moses said to Him: “Master of the universe! If one is thus contaminated, how may he be purified?!” G-d did not answer him. At that moment, the face of Moses turned pale.

When G-d came to the section of the “Red Heifer,” He said to Moses: “This is its manner of purification.” Said Moses to G-d: “Master of the universe! This is a purification?” Said G-d: “Moses, it is a chok, a decree that I have decreed, and no creature can fully comprehend My decrees.”[4]

The Mystery of Death

The departure of the soul from the body is incomprehensible to us. Not rationally – rationally, death makes perfect sense. We understand the fragility of life, the dissolutive nature of everything physical. But in our heart of hearts, we refuse to accept it. Regardless of all “evidence” to the contrary, we persist in seeing life as eternal; regardless of what the mind explains, we reject the very concept of death.

Even more difficult to accept is that there can be some process, some formula, that can possibly deal with, let alone heal, the terrible void of life departed. What possible antidote can there be to the anguish, the emptiness, the utter futility that death brings to the human heart?

This was why Moses turned pale upon hearing about the ritual laws of death. It was not for the lack of rational understanding of how the spiritual stain of death can be cleansed; indeed, Moses was the one human being to whom “the meaning of the Heifer” was revealed. Still he cried: “Master of the universe! Is this a purification?” You have explained to me how the ashes of the Red Heifer “work.” My mind is satisfied, but this does little to still the turmoil of my heart. My heart cannot comprehend how the evil of death can possibly be mitigated.

And G-d replied: “Moses, it is a chok, a decree that I have decreed.” Certain things are so overwhelming to My creations that they can only be overcome by submitting to an absolute command from an absolute authority. I have therefore commanded laws to instruct you what to do when your lives are touched by death. These are supra-rational, even irrational laws, for only such laws can facilitate your recovery. It is only by force of an utterly incomprehensible divine decree that you can recover from death.

The Laws of Mourning

Today, we do not have the ashes of the Red Heifer. But we do have laws and rituals to deal with death. Torah law instructs us to mourn the death of a loved one – and then regulates our mourning. The very concept of “laws of mourning” is incomprehensible. Can a person be instructed to mourn? Can he, conversely, be instructed to reduce or cease his mourning?

Yet this is precisely what the Torah does. There are specific laws that govern the intensity of the mourning in the hours from the death to the burial (a period called onanut), specific laws for the first three days following the burial, for the first seven days (shivah), for the first thirty days (sheloshim), and for the first year following a death. At each of these junctures, it is demanded of us to cross over into a new phase of mourning – a phase in which the intensity of our anguish and sense of loss is further mitigated and sublimated.

We resist these milestones with every fiber of our being. The mind understands the difference between the shivah and the sheloshim and between the sheloshim and the first year, but the heart does not accept it. One need not be disheartened by this internal resistance: the Torah tells us that Moses himself could not prevail upon his heart to accept what his mind had been given to understand. Even after G-d explained to Moses how the “Red Heifer” sublimates an encounter with death, it remained a chok – distant from the greatest of minds and utterly incomprehensible to every heart. Yet G-d commands us to make these transitions, and empowers us to fulfill His command.

It is the power of the divine decree that enables us to go on – both in our own lives, and in our work on behalf of others (for surely those who are dependent upon us cannot be made to wait until our minds and hearts have fully integrated what we know is expected of us). And the power of the divine decree is such that we can ultimately prevail upon ourselves to sublimate the negativities of death.

May we soon merit the day that such sublimation will no longer be necessary-the day when the Almighty will “remove the spirit of impurity from the earth”[5] so that “death shall cease forever and G-d shall erase the tear from every face”[6] and “those who dwell in the dust shall waken and rejoice.”[7]

Based on two addresses delivered by the Rebbe on Adar 21, 5748 (March 10, 1988), upon the conclusion of the sheloshim of his wife, Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka Schneerson, of blessed memory.

Adapted from the teachings of the Rebbe by Yanki Tauber

[1] I Kings 5:11.

[2] Midrash Rabbah, Bamidbar 19:3, after Ecclesiastes 7:23.

[3] Ibid. 19:4.

[4] Midrash Rabbah, Kohelet 8:5.

[5] Zechariah 13:2.

[6] Isaiah 25:8.

[7] Ibid. 26:19.

July 19, 2015
The Heifer and the Calf

A maid’s child once dirtied the royal palace. Said the king: “Let his mother come and clean up her child’s filth.” By the same token, G-d says: “Let the [red] heifer atone for the deed of the [golden] calf.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 8

The Torah defines “life” as attachment to G-d.[1] Thus, the righteous are considered to be alive even after their physical demise, while “transgressors [of the divine will], even in their lifetimes, are considered to be dead.”[2] A life disconnected from its source is a pseudo-life, a life devoid of its essence and raison d’être.

This explains the connection between the “red heifer,” which is the divinely-prescribed antidote to the ritual impurity caused by contact with death, and the sin of the golden calf.

Immediately upon his creation, Adam, the first man, acknowledged his commitment to G-d as the essence of his vitality.[3] But on that very day, a breach appeared in the link between creature and Creator. Man transgressed the divine will (by eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge); as a result, the phenomenon of death became part of the human experience.

Twenty-six generations later, death was vanquished once more. G-d descended upon Mount Sinai, restoring His original, intimate bond with His creation[4]; man committed himself unequivocally to the fulfillment of the divine will,[5] restoring his original, absolute connection to his source of life and liberating him from the clutches of the angel of death. [6]

But this time, too, the unadulterated flow of vitality from heaven to earth was short-lived. Forty days after the people of Israel stood at Sinai, they transgressed the divine decree “You shall have no other gods before Me”[7]by worshipping a calf of gold. The pestilence of death, introduced into the world by Adam’s sin and banished at Sinai, was re-introduced by the sin of the Golden Calf.[8]

Three Degrees of Relation

As the ultimate symptom of man’s disconnection from G-d, death is the “father of all fathers of impurity.”[9] Torah law delineates several forms of ritual impurity, but the most severe is that generated by a dead body.[10] While other forms of impurity are conducted by touching or moving the impure object, the impurity of death is unique in that it is conducted also via a “canopy”: if a person so much as finds himself for the briefest of moments under one roof with a dead body, he is rendered ritually impure until the ashes of the Red Heifer are sprinkled upon him.[11]

Chassidic teaching speaks of three general degrees of relation: internal, immediately encompassing, and distantly encompassing (penimi, makif hakarov and makif harachok). One example are the three basic material needs of man: food, clothing and shelter. Food is “internal,” entering into the body and becoming part of its very substance. Clothing is an “immediate encompasser,” enveloping the body from without but in direct relation to it (a larger person needs larger clothes while a smaller person requires smaller clothes). A home is “distantly encompassing” of the person, surrounding him in a way that bears no direct relation to him.

In the human psyche, these correspond to the intellect, will and desire. The intellect is the “food” of the soul: rational truths are ingested and digested by the person and incorporated by him as part of his mindset and thought-process. More “encompassing” is the will, which is essentially supra-rational, and thus “beyond” the person, imposing itself upon his internal self from without. Nevertheless, the will is an “immediate encompasser,” fitting the rational self like a garment fits a body (thus, a person will give rational explanations why he wants something; these “reasons” are not the true cause of his will, but the very fact that it can be explained means that the will is not completely removed from the rational self).[12] The “distant encompasser” is desire,[13] which is completely supra-rational and inexplicable, bearing no visible relation to the internal composition of the soul.[14]

Paradoxically, the more “distant” a thing is, the more integral it is to the person’s self-definition. Thus, a person’s sense of self is reflected more in his clothing than in what he eats, and his home is more integral to his identity than his clothes.[15] A person will sacrifice more for what he wants than for what he understands, and his supra-rational “desires” touch him even more deeply and are even more essential to him. In truth, however, this is no paradox: because the more “encompassing” elements of a person’s life are rooted so deeply in his essence, they are too profound to be assimilated by the finite faculties of his conscious self.

Therein lies the significance of the fact that the impurity spawned by death is conducted via a “canopy,” pervading the building which houses it and contaminating everything under its roof. Other impurities affect only the “internal” aspect of the person, or, at most, the “immediately encompassing” areas of his being; correspondingly, they are conducted by direct or second-hand contact. It is a mark of the primacy of the impurity of death that it infiltrates also the “distantly encompassing” aspect of the person, and correspondingly extends itself also via a “distant encompasser”—the house or “canopy” that shelters him.

The Antidote

To purify one who has been contaminated by contact with death, the Torah commands that a red heifer be slaughtered and burned, and its ashes mixed with “living water”—water from a spring issuing from the earth. These “waters of purification” are then sprinkled on the contaminated person on the third and seventh day of a seven-day purification period.

For if death is the symptom of disconnection from G-d, the mitzvah, or divine commandment, is the means by which we achieve connection and union with Him. And the law of the red heifer is the archetypal mitzvah—the commandment that embodies all 613 commandments of the Torah.

The law of the red heifer is a chok—an utterly supra-rational divine decree. It prompted King Solomon, the “wisest of men,”[16] to say:

“All these [Torah laws] I have comprehended. But the chapter of the red heifer—though I have examined it, questioned it, and delved into it—‘I[17] thought to be wise to it, but it eludes me.’”[18]

The Midrash relates that when G-d taught this law to Moses, the receiver of the Torah was incredulous.

“Master of the Universe!” he cried out. “This is a purification?” To which G-d replied: “Moses, it is a chok, a decree that I have decreed, and no creature can fully comprehend My decrees.”[19]

Yet the Torah introduces the law of the red heifer with the statement, “This is the decree of the Torah,”[20] implying that it is the prototype for all the Torah’s commandments. For in essence, every mitzvah—including such ultra-rational mitzvot as “Do not kill” and “Honor your father and your mother”—is a supra-rational decree of G-d. The various reasons and explanations that can be given for many a mitzvah are but a surface rationality that conceals its supra-rational depths.

But the law of the red heifer is more than an exemplar of the supra-rationality of the mitzvot. The details and particulars of this mitzvah embody the various forms and functions that the mitzvah assumes, making it a microcosm of the 613 commandments of the Torah.

The law of the red heifer is replete with contradictory themes and provisions. The ashes of the red heifer remove the most severe of all impurities; yet those involved in its preparation (those who slaughter the heifer, burn it, and collect its ashes) become ritually impure themselves.[21] The heifer itself is a paradox of the lowly and the lofty: it must be completely red—a color which has negative connotations in Torah and Torah law[22]; the Torah commands that it be slaughtered outside the holy city of Jerusalem (in contrast with other korbanot, which must be slaughtered in the courtyard of the Holy Temple)[23]; on the other hand, it must be “perfect, without blemish”[24]; it is slaughtered within the sight of the Holy Temple and its blood is sprinkled “toward the Holy of Holies”[25]; it is prepared by a kohen—according to one opinion, by the Kohen Gadol (High Priest), wearing the “white clothes” reserved for the Yom Kippur service in the Holy of Holies.[26] And the purifying mixture of ashes and water is a combination of two contradictory forces: fire, which represents the power of ascent, and water, which embodies the quality of “settling down” and saturation.

For this is the paradox of the mitzvah, by which G-d enjoins us to descend into the physical world in order to sanctify it, and at the same time remain aloof of its materiality and profanity. In general, this is the function of the two categories of mitzvot: the 365 “prohibitions,” by which we sanctify ourselves by spurning the corporeality of the physical state, and the 248 “positive commandments,” by which we interact with and develop the physical world as a vessel for G-dliness. In particular, each individual mitzvah is both a “positive” and “prohibitive” act: an act of rejection and acceptance, of transcendence and involvement, an amalgam of ascending fire and descending water. A mitzvah is man living a physical life, accepting the physical state as his means of connection with G-d, and at the same time remaining a spiritual being, refusing to allow the physical state to define his life and dictate his priorities.

How does one act upon the physical world without being absorbed by it? How does one ensure that one’s “water” element is not muddied by its descent? The answer lies in the Torah’s stipulation that the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer must be “living water”—“water that has seeped through the veins of the earth… and is thus refined and rarefied.”[27]

“Earth” represents humility and self-abnegation (as in the prayer “May my soul be as dust to all”[28]). When a person’s involvement with the material is filtered via the earth of self-abnegation to G-d (i.e., the absence of all motives and aspirations save the fulfillment of His will), his water is “living water,” uncontaminable by the negative encumbrances of material life. Mixed with the fire of spiritual striving, it cleanses the world of the stain of death, of its separateness and disconnection from G-d, and restores the primordial harmony between Creator and creation.

Based on an entry in the Rebbe’s journal dated “Chukat, 5700 [1940], Vichy”[29]

Adapted from the teachings of the Rebbe by Yanki Tauber

[1]. Deuteronomy 4:4; ibid., 30:20; et al.

[2]. Talmud, Berachot 18a-b. Cf. Isaiah 59:2: “Your sins separate between you and your G-d”; Tanya, Iggeret HaTeshuvah, ch. 5.

[3]. “When Adam stood up on his feet, he saw that all creatures feared him and followed him as servants do their master. He then said to them: ‘You and I both, come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before G-d our maker’” (Zohar, part I, 221b).

[4]. Cf. Midrash Rabbah, Shir HaShirim 5:1: “I came to My home—to the place where My primary presence was at first… [for] Adam’s sin caused the divine presence to depart [from the physical world] … and then Moses came and brought it down to the earth.”

[5]. Exodus 19:8, 24:3 and 24:7.

[6]. Talmud, Shabbat 146a; Midrash Rabbah, Shemot 41:9.

[7]. Second of the Ten Commandments proclaimed at Sinai, Exodus 20:3.

[8]. Zohar, part I, 52b. See Tanya, ch. 36; Igrot Kodesh, vol. V, p. 310, note 6 and sources cited there.

[9]. See Encyclopedia Talmudit, vol. I, p. 50 (s.v. avi avot hatumah), and sources cited there.

[10]. Maimonides’ introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah; cf. Midrash Rabbah, Kohelet 8:5.

[11]. Numbers 19:14.

[12]. There are, of course, wants and desires that stem not from the supra-rational self but from wholly rational motives and reasonings. These belong to the “internal” element of the psyche. “Will” (ratzon), in this context, is a term that applies exclusively to those aspirations that stem from the person’s supra-rational self—things that a person wants for no “reason” other than the fact that he wants them—and are only subsequently related to by the rational self, which often attributes rational reasons to them.

[13]. In English, the words “will” and “desire” are often interchangeable. Here, they are used as translations of the Hebrew terms ratzon and oneg. Chassidic teaching includes many and various definitions of ratzon andoneg, and discusses many sub-categories and definitions within each of them. A full discussion is beyond the scope of this essay. For the sake of our discussion, we will suffice with the simple distinction between “will,” which is rational in the sense that a person can explain it, and “desire,” which defies all attempts to make sense of it. In other words, “will” and “desire” are both encompassing faculties in that they derive from a place in the soul that is not accessible by reason, and thus cannot be “internalized” by the person; “will,” however, is “close” enough to reason to be relatable to by the rational self as an “immediate encompasser.”

[14]. Man’s relationship with G-d also includes internal, immediately encompassing, and distantly encompassing elements. Torah study is the “internal” component of the relationship: the human mind assimilates the divine wisdom, making it part of its own composition. The mitzvot are the “encompassing” element: essentially supra-rational, man fulfills them in obedience to the divine will, “imposing” upon himself a behavior that is beyond his understanding. Nevertheless, virtually all mitzvot relate to the rational self: many can be rationally explained (though their rationality is not the “reason” for their observance); many are endowed with a symbolism that we can analyze and relate to rationally; and even the most logic-defying of mitzvot can be “understood” in terms of the logical necessity that man submit to the divine will. But then there are those elements of our relationship with G-d that belong to the realm of “distant encompassers”—elements that are so far removed from our rational selves that we cannot relate to them in any way, or even be aware of their existence. A case in point is the mitzvah of shikchah (“forgetting” a bundle of grain in the field for the poor—Deuteronomy 24:19), which can only be fulfilled against a person’s conscious will.

[15]. Hence the adage, “A man without a home is not a man” (Talmud, Yevamot 63a; and Tosafot there).

[16]. I Kings 5:11.

[17]. Ecclesiastes 7:23.

[18]. Midrash Rabbah, Bamidbar 19:3.

[19]. Midrash Rabbah, Kohelet 8:5.

[20]. Numbers 19:2.

[21]. Ibid., vv. 7-10; Talmud, Parah 4:4.

[22]. Genesis 25:30 (see Reshimot #12, p. 19); Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 178:1.

[23]. Numbers 19:3.

[24]. Ibid. v. 2.

[25]. Ibid. v. 4; Talmud, Parah 3:9 and 4:2.

[26]. Talmud, ibid. 4:1.

[27]. Likkutei Torah, Chukat 62b.

[28]. End of Amidah prayer; Talmud, Berachot 17a.

[29]. Reshimot #49.

July 19, 2015