This is the final Torah reading before Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, begins on Monday evening. In it, Moses reiterates the terms of the covenant, as well as the blessings and the curses which may follow from obeying it, or not, respectively.
There is a difficult passage in which Moses advises people against making their own, private, moral compromises: "And it will be, when he [such a person] hears the words of this oath, that he will bless himself in his heart, saying, 'I will have peace, even if I follow my heart's desires,' in order to add the [punishment for the] unintentional sins [of this man] to that of [his] intentional sins. The Lord will not be willing to forgive him; rather, then, the Lord's fury and His zeal will fume against that man, and the entire curse written in this book will rest upon him, and the Lord will obliterate his name from beneath the heavens." (29:18-19)
This is a caution against hypocrisy; it is also, in a way, a warning against addiction. The Sages of the Talmud advise that the danger of sin is that it may become addictive, such that one leads to another, increasing a person's tolerance for sin until he or she no longer feels any pang of conscience about it.
But what about the sort of compromises everyday life demands? Are we to feel guilty about things which seem beyond our control?
The Torah answers: "For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?' Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it." (30:11-14)
So even overcoming addictions is not beyond us. And often, the answer to whatever feeling compels us to sin is closer at hand than we may think.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
