Judaism

ASK THE RABBI

Looking for answers? Send your question to Rabbi@RabbiSchochet.com

THE REBBE – 28 YEARS ON

Dear Rabbi

I know this weekend is the 28th anniversary of the passing of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. I know he was admired by many and I understand why. But if he is no longer alive why do so many people continue to revere him as they do and why do they continue to always celebrate his life?

Gilad

Dear Gilad

When the renowned Rabbi Yisroel Bal Shem Tov saw misfortune threatening the Jewish people it was his custom to go into a certain part of the forest to meditate. There he would light a fire, say a special prayer, and the miracle would be accomplished and the misfortune averted. Later, when his chief disciple, the Maggid of Mezritch had occasion, for the same reason, to intercede with heaven, he would go to the same place in the forest and say: “Dear G-d. I do not know how to light the fire, but I am still able to say the prayer and that must be enough,” and it was and the miracle would be accomplished.

Still later, his disciple, Rabbi Moshe Leib Sasover, in order to save his people once more, would go into the forest and say, “I do not know how to light the fire. I do not know the prayer, but I know the place and this must be sufficient.” It was sufficient, and the miracle was accomplished.

Then it fell to Rabbi Israel of Rizhin to overcome misfortune. Sitting in his armchair, his head in his hands, he spoke to G-d: “I am unable to light the fire, and I do not know the prayer, and I cannot even find the place in the forest. All I can do is tell the story, and this must be sufficient.” And it was.

There are so many different lessons one can derive from this story, but for me the most glaring and obvious lesson is that different people have different ways to engage with their Judaism. They have distinct ways by which they identify, individual ways that they approach G-d.

Some can light the fire. Their souls are aflame. They are full of passion and fervour for their Judaism. They approach everything with excitement and they indulge in a most ecstatic manner.

Yet others may not be as deeply connected. They may not feel the full fervour of their souls being drawn to their supernal source above. But they pray. They still remain eminently attached. They may not be dancing on spiritual rooftops but their Judaism is still everything to them. Their people mean everything to them.

There are those for whom the fire is certainly not discernible and even prayer is something of an alien concept. Maybe they endured suffering in some manifestation that led them to become sceptical, and embittered. But they know where to go. Every now and then they will surface at Synagogue however sporadically that might be.

Finally there are those for whom the fire seems all but extinguished. Prayer is something other people do. They don’t even know where to go. All they have is a story to tell. A story about a parent or a grandparent whom they recall being Jewish. A grandmother who lit Shabbat candles, a mother who fried latkes. They remember their grandfather wrapped in a talit, their father saying kaddish. They can tell the story but that’s all. It’s a story of yesteryear, in times of yore.

This is the reality of the history of our people through the ages. We have transformed through the course of time from the fire of once upon a time to the mere story tellers that epitomise so many today.

You’d think it was a lost cause. You’d think we ought to give up. But there was one man who rose to the challenge. One giant of a leader who committed himself to recognising that even those who but tell the story still have little embers burning within and that so long as there is a spark – and there is always a spark – there is the potential for even that person, for every person, to aspire to light the fire once more. And when the Rebbe committed himself to this mission, like the many greats before him, the miracle was once again accomplished.

When the Brandenburg Gate, upon which Nazi flags were hanging, now has a public Menorah erected in front of it, is that not a miracle? When Uganda, home of Idi Amin, who famously held 106 Israeli hostages, now has a Chabad House, is that not a miracle? When the former Soviet Union persecuted millions of Jews, and today boasts more Chabad Houses, more schools and other suchlike institutions than all of Europe combined, is that not a miracle?

To the Rebbe, those who light the fires and those who say the prayers and those who know where to go and those who tell the story – they are all part of the same people, the same family, the same history and the same destiny.

The Rebbe also believed in the intrinsic value of every human being who is “formed in the image of his/her Creator.” Thus, what one might typically perceive as character shortcomings, the Rebbe saw as opportunities to maximise potential. As he famously declared to a young man sharing a personal quandary: “I envy you! That G-d has given you this particular challenge means He also gave you unique strengths with which to overcome it. I don’t have such a challenge which suggests I don’t have that unique strength either.” It was precisely because of this deep-rooted belief in both the micro and macro dimensions of the world that the Rebbe broke radically with protocol. Unlike many Jewish communities and sects that assemble within their own enclave, the Rebbe dispersed his community sending out shluchim, a dozen or so at first, and then over the course of time, several thousand to literally every corner of the world. Ask yourself, where would the world be today without the Rebbe’s vision? Who would provide a Pesach Seder for twenty-five hundred Israeli backpackers in Kathmandu? Where would Jewish women have access to a mikvah in Saigon? How would Israeli war orphans celebrate their Bar Mitzvah each year in Israel? What would have become of the near three thousand children, victimized by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster? Is all that not a miracle? But here’s the greatest miracle of all. I have almost every newspaper clipping from twenty-eight years ago, when the Rebbe’s physical presence was removed from this world. Such was the impact of the Rebbe that practically every respectable newspaper throughout the world carried the news. They all shared two common themes. They reported on the Rebbe’s sad passing whilst referencing his vast accomplishments. And they all questioned the viability of Chabad going forward. What they did not know is that true leaders are great not because they have power but because of their ability to empower others. Thus in these past twenty-eight years another 2000 Shluchim went out, hundreds more Chabad Houses and other centres etc. were opened. Is that not a miracle? And why does the Rebbe’s legacy continue to impact in ways unimaginable? Because when you limit yourself then your impact will always be limited. But when you are committed to the totality of the Jewish people – those who know the fire and those who pray and those who only know where to go and those who can but only tell the story – when your concern and your love is for each and every one, then the leadership continues no less, the demands continue no less, the impact continues no less. Demographers were predicting the demise of Chabad but it has gone from strength to strength because the legacy of true leaders is eternal as their life continues to inspire everlastingly. That’s certainly something to revere and to celebrate.

Follow Rabbi Schochet at: RabbiSchochet.com Twitter: @RabbiYYS Facebook: facebook.com/Rabbiyys.

THE PERFECT GIFTS FOR FOR ANYONE AT ANY TIME

10% OFF

Quote JW42 at checkout to claim your 10% discount.

BUY NOW from www.hermieshop.co.uk www.hermieshop.co.uk

Lots of other great designs available online!

Weekly Dvar Torah

FROM ERETZ YISRAEL Korach and the overbearing parent

BY RABBANIT SHANI TARAGIN

Numerous explanations are offered to explain Korach’s motivations in starting a religious mutiny against Moshe and Aharon. Rashi (16:7) cites Midrash Tanchuma and teaches that Korach experienced a prophetic vision through which he saw that his descendants would include Shmuel HaNavi as well as numerous Levi’im who would later serve in the Beit HaMikdash. Korach said to himself, “Could it be that all this greatness will in the future emerge from me, and I will be silent?”

Korach’s epiphany of his progeny’s greatness prompted him to take bold action and insist on serving as a kohen. Rav Simcha Bunim of Peshischa (Kol Simcha) explains that Korach wrongly assumed that the success of his future generations depended on his promotions, and that his influence as a leader was vital for his descendants to reach the spiritual heights that he foresaw them achieving. He did not sufficiently believe that his descendants were capable of reaching these accomplishments on their own. His failed efforts proved that the achievements of his progeny did not depend on his position or bombastic demands. Independent of Korach’s actions, his descendants would aspire and invest to reach prophetic stature.

This message is underscored primarily through his descendant, Shmuel HaNavi (based on Divrei HaYamim I 6:18–22). As his mother Chana prays and cries for a child, she asks Hashem for a “zera anashim” Shmuel I 1:11) – an average child, i.e. not too tall, nor too short, not too smart or too handsome (Yalkut Shimoni 247:78). Shmuel becomes an extraordinary child not because of his ancestry or great-grandfather’s quest for promotion, nor because he is born with supernatural talents. His mother educates and directs him appropriately as she brings him to the best ‘navi-training school’ at the time (i.e. Eli HaKohen in the Mishkan). Shmuel sees the negative influences around him (Eli’s own sons!) and chooses a path of righteousness and prophetic pursuits. He understands that proper parental prayer, education, leadership and guidance is imperative to encourage greatness but it does not guarantee success; a child must be encouraged to choose greatness on his/her own.

This message is underscored at the end of the parasha as well. To finally quell the aftermath of Korach’s rebellion, Hashem commands each tribal leader to inscribe his name upon a staff and place it before the aron kodesh. Only the staff of Aharon HaKohen, the leader of shevet Levi, blossoms and bears forth almonds as a sign of Divine selection of priesthood for generations to come. Aharon’s role is limited – he must inscribe his identity on his staff of leadership and properly position it before Hashem. He must then leave it overnight and await the results with the other leaders. The blossoms on the staff, representing his descendants, will bear fruit under Hashem’s supervision. The quality of the almond fruit, however, is dependent on the actions of his progeny (see Yirmiyahu 1:11-12).

Children must be properly educated to make their own decisions that will determine the type of people they become. Parents occasionally, like Korach, wrongly assuming that their children’s future depends solely upon the parents’ actions and influence, may exert excessive and overbearing control over their children. Parents indeed have a tremendous responsibility towards properly influencing their children and must invest in educating them with proper values while simultaneously recognizing that their children chart their own course and make their own decisions. The parents’ role in determining the child’s trajectory in life is significant, but limited. The story of Korach warns us not to resort to drastic measures in our efforts to influence our children, and to understand that even the children of a selfish man like Korach, are capable of blossoming into prophets.

Rabbanit Shani Taragin is educational director of World Mizrachi and teaches at Matan and other educational institutions in Israel. She is a member of Mizrachi’s Speakers Bureau (www.mizrachi.org/ speakers).

Parshat Korach: Not Losing Sight of the Situation

BY GAVRIEL COHN

The fractious episodes that occurred throughout the Jewish People’s journey in the desert deal with many timeless religious and political issues, debates that persist to this day.

The story of Korach’s rebellion tells of the tensions that exist between authority and equality, the individual and the collective, and whether we have to follow formal rules to serve G-d or not. Faith, religion, politics, and self-interest were all packaged together into a mutiny against Moshe’s leadership.

Yet there is perhaps another aspect to this rebellion, one often overlooked that we could pick up from Moshe’s response to it. It was not just about challenging the leaders of the society, or its religious norms, but also that they had superficially and spectacularly misjudged their situation.

The Torah is far lengthier in describing how the rebellion was quashed than in the movement’s initial claims. The Torah details how fire pans were lit, “and the glory of the Lord appeared before the entire congregation.” Moshe then declared that “if the earth opens its mouth and swallows them and all that is theirs, everyone will know that these men have angered G-d.” The ground beneath the troubling tribes then suddenly split open. “They and all they possessed descended alive into the grave, the earth covered them up and they were lost to the assembly.” Later, “a divine fire came forth and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who had offered up the incense.” A plague then swept through the people. Aharon offered incense to dissipate the plague. Finally, G-d commanded Moshe to place the wooden staffs of all the chieftains in the Sanctuary. “Aharon’s staff for the house of Levi blossomed, sprouted buds, and produced ripe almonds,” showing him to be worthy of his position.

These were epic miracles, signs and wonders that quelled these challenges to Moshe’s leadership. They manifested to all that “G-d had sent Moshe.” It was almost a Jewish, desert version of the “ten plagues,” so-to-speak. Yet herein lies the issue with Korach’s rebellion.

This was a generation that, despite its supreme greatness, based its beliefs on what it saw. They watched wonderous plagues rain down upon Egypt and witnessed the epic Divine Revelation at Sinai. In the wilderness, their spies surveyed well-fortified cities and strongmen, and so judged it unconquerable. Whatever this nation saw, was final (R’ Moshe Feinstein, Parshat Korach). As they journeyed in their desert encampments and gazed at the House of G-d in the centre of their mass of tents and tribes, they noticed the few families of Kohanim ministering in its holy precincts. Some then protested what they saw, such exclusivity and privilege.

These dissenters had to be shown why serving in G-d’s Sanctuary was only limited to a small professional group: G-d’s fire and plague had to spread throughout the camp, and Moshe and Aharon’s selfless dedication had to be made manifestly clear to all. The Kohanim were not exploiting any privileges, but rather they were dedicated to allowing G-d’s Presence to dwell in the people’s midst, “bearing the burden of the Temple and safeguarding it’s charges.”

Korach’s band of rebels failed to look deeper than their initial assumptions; so the truth then played out in a spectacular fashion in front of their eyes.

The Kohanim were not exploiting any privileges, but rather they were dedicated to allowing G-d’s Presence to dwell in the people’s midst, “bearing the burden of the Temple and safeguarding it’s charges.”

Gav works as an Account Executive in Public Relations. The views expressed here are entirely his own. Questions? gavcohn@gmail.com

Korach Sidra Summary

“The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households, and all the people who were with Korach, and the entire wealth” (Bemidbar 16:32)

1ST ALIYA (KOHEN) – BEMIDBAR 16:1-13

Korach, from the tribe of Levi, conspires with Datan, Aviram and On from the tribe of Reuven. They gather together 250 leading Israelites and challenge Moshe and Aharon’s rights to leadership. Moshe tells Korach and his assembly to prepare an incense offering in a fire-pan to bring the next morning. Aharon will do the same; whoever’s offering is received by G-d will indicate the rightful leadership. Moshe tries to dissuade the rebels. Datan and Aviram refuse to speak with Moshe, accusing him of “bringing the nation out of the land of Egypt in order to kill them in the desert”.

Point to Consider: Why is Korach’s lineage only listed three generations back and not more? (see Rashi to 16:1)

2ND ALIYA (LEVI) – 16:14-19

Datan and Aviram continue their tirade against Moshe, who is angered. He declares to G-d that he has received no personal gain from his leadership. The next morning, Korach and his assembly arrive with their incense offerings at the entrance to the Ohel Moed (Tent of Meeting), as does Aharon, accompanied by Moshe.

3RD ALIYA (SHLISHI) – 16:20-17:8

G-d tells Moshe and Aharon to separate themselves from the rest of the nation, as G-d will immediately destroy Korach and all those people who have been drawn after him, including many of the Israelites (Rashi). Moshe and Aharon plead for mercy. G-d relents, telling Moshe to instruct the nation to distance themselves from Korach, Datan and Aviram in order to prove their allegiance to Moshe. Datan and Aviram remain defiant. Moshe announces that if Korach and his followers die a normal death, then he, Moshe, is not G-d’s rightful appointee. Yet if the ground swallows them up miraculously, then Moshe’s leadership is legitimate. As Moshe finishes speaking, the ground opens up, consuming Korach, some of his followers and all of their property. A fire then consumes Korach’s 250 men whom he had incited to join in the rebellion. Moshe commands Aharon’s son Elazar to gather up the copper fire pans of those who died in order to make them into a covering for the Mizbeach (Altar). The next day, the people complain to Moshe and Aharon for ‘causing’ so many deaths.

4TH ALIYA (REVI’I) – 17:9-15

In response to the complaints, G-d threatens to wipe out the people. As a fatal plague breaks out, Moshe tells Aharon to place incense in a fire-pan to gain atonement for the complainers. Aharon does so, managing to stop the plague, but not before it kills 14,700 people.

5TH ALIYA (CHAMISHI) – 17:16-24

G-d tells Moshe to gather a staff from each tribe’s leader, with the name of the tribe written on the staff. Aharon’s name is to be written on the staff of Levi. The staffs are to be left in the Ohel Moed; whichever tribe’s staff miraculously blossoms is the rightful leader. The leaders do as instructed. The following morning Aharon’s staff has blossoms with a bud and almonds.

6TH ALIYA (SHISHI) – 17:25-18:20

G-d tells Moshe to preserve Aharon’s staff as a reminder that he was chosen, lest the people rebel in the future. G-d reiterates Aharon’s duties and the need for the Levi’im to assist him and the other Kohanim. The Kohanim have the privilege of eating certain parts of offerings and certain tithes. The laws of redeeming firstborn male children and bringing firstborn animals as offerings are stated.

7TH ALIYA (SHEVI’I) – 18:21-32

The ‘first tithe’ (ma’aser rishon) taken from crops is given to the Levi’im. They need to separate a portion of this tithe to give to the Kohanim.

HAFTARAH

From the Book of Shmuel, the haftarah describes the day on which Shmuel appoints Shaul as the first king of Israel. Shmuel rebukes the nation for demanding a king and emphasises that they still need to fear G-d and obey His commandments. The righteous Shmuel was descended from Korach and he, like Moshe, declares that he has never taken anything from the people.

Korach

RABBI DR RAYMOND APPLE

THE KORACH CONFLICT

Everybody knows that Korach is a bad man. Backed by some of the leaders of the people he stood up and challenged Moses. Though the Midrash suggests causes of the conflict, the Torah gives us very little information to go on.

The sages find grounds for the controversy in differing attitudes to halachah. With these circumstances we see that Korach and company were out to embarrass Moses.

They assure him of their loyalty to the commandments of tzitzit and mezuzah. “Yes, four-cornered garments need fringes including a thread of blue,” they say, “but what if the whole garment is blue?... Yes, a house needs mezuzot containing the name of G-d, but what if the whole building is full of books which contain the Divine name?”

Harmless questions – or are they? The Korach campaign reminds us of a current problem whereby one group denigrates another and says, “Yes, you say you stand for kashrut – but is your kashrut really kosher?”

THE NAME OF KORACH

Maybe the name of Korach should not be mentioned at all since the Talmud (Yoma 38b) says, “We do not mention the name of the wicked”, and there is a verse in Mishlei (10:7) which says, “The name of the wicked shall rot”.

We know that there are thoughtful psalms written by the Sons of Korach, who must have abandoned the family’s wickedness… but Korach himself gives no indication of righteousness or repentance.

The root of his name seems to be “k-r-ch”, which denotes baldness. The rabbis say that Korach caused a bald area between two sides amongst the people of Israel, and with this record how can we be doing the right thing to mention Korach or to name a sidra after him?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe uses the name as an indication of what we should do, i.e. to bring unity between factions and join both sides of a quarrel in love and harmony.

TAKING & BETAKING

The sidra begins with the phrase “Vayikkach Korach”, “And Korach took”.

What did Korach take? Was he a thief who makes a living from taking things that belong to other people? Probably not, so what did Korach take?

Some say that the phrase means, “And Korach betook himself”. In that sense the text is being idiomatic, using a phrase that has a particular sense in the development of language.

In English you can use the word take in many more senses than simply “to take” with the meaning of “to steal”. Examples are, “Take note… Take a note… Take yourself home… Take yourself off… He was taken with the idea… She was taken with the boy… They were all on the uptake…”.

DATAN & AVIRAM..

Korach’s henchmen were Datan, Aviram and On ben Pelet.

How On ben Pelet extricated himself from the conspiracy, thanks to the advice of a sensible wife, has been discussed previously.

Datan and Aviram, on the other hand, continued to give Moses a hard time, but apparently his reaction was without rancour. He asked them “to come up”, i.e. to appear before him and discuss the matter. They retorted, “We will not come up!” (Num. 16:12).

Moses felt there was room for negotiation; Datan and Aviram refused to negotiate.

This it was, says the Midrash, that sealed their fate.

They sensed that they might give way – at least to some extent – if they sat and spoke with Moses. Fearing that they might end up making a compromise, and considering compromise a sign of weakness, they showed themselves to be mere mischief-makers, unable to contemplate a peaceful solution.

As a result, they lost their place in history.

Had they been more amenable, tradition would have praised their common sense.

It would have said that everybody makes mistakes, and the mark of a person who is morally strong is the ability to say or at least imply, “I was wrong”.

Overcoming your mistakes takes nerve, courage and humility, but Datan and Aviram were short of all three.

Rabbi Raymond Apple was for many years Australia’s highest profile rabbi and the leading spokesman on Judaism. After serving congregations in London, Rabbi Apple was chief minister of the Great Synagogue, Sydney, for 32 years. He also held many public roles, particularly in the fields of chaplaincy, interfaith dialogue and Freemasonry, and is the recipient of several national and civic honours. Now retired, he lives in Jerusalem and blogs at http://www.oztorah.com

24 JUDAISM

TO ADVERTISE CALL 020 3906 8488 Torah from Israel

Korach: Democracy and Religion Creatures of Rights of Creatures of Duty

BY RABBI MOSHE TARAGIN

Korach was a cynical demagogue who launched a mutiny against Moshe. There was nothing holy about his intentions. The actual claims he lodged however, did carry legitimacy. He asserted equal rights for every individual member of society, foreshadowing the great arguments of modern democracy.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. These words, written in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and carved into history, launched the great project of modern democracy. For the first time, governments preserved basic human rights, including the freedom of worship. No longer banned, Judaism flourished. Yet the culture which democracy has construed is often dissonant with deeply held religious values. Democracy and religion have a peculiar relationship: democracy gives, and it takes.

Religious identity is built upon the values of commandment, commitment, mission, and mutual responsibility. At Sinai, we were charged with a comprehensive system of mitzvoth commands, which limit freedom of choice, but infuse our lives with higher meaning. Additionally, we model a life of meaning and commandment to the broader world. As a “kingdom of priests”, our mission is to showcase a G-dly life of devotion for all humanity. In addition, we bear mutual responsibility to one another. The doctrine of areivut asserts that that every Jew is morally and legally responsible for each other. Unless I assist others in their mitzvoth, I haven’t completely satisfied my own commandment.

Mission, commandment, commitment, and mutual responsibility form a cornerstone of duty which is the foundation of religious life. In his 18th century moral guide known as “Mesilat yesharim”, Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato, framed a haunting demand which defines Jewish identity. Every Jew must ask themselves “What are my duties in this world?”. Hashem created us a creatures of duty, and our call to duty provides us meaning, nobility, and loftiness.

Sadly, in many modern democracies, we often view ourselves as creatures of rights rather than creatures of duty. How did we get here, and what are the dangers for religion?

DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Without law and without government, weaker members of society would be exploited by stronger members. Additionally, society at large would be vulnerable to foreign aggression. To establish strong government to preserve order and provide safety, individuals must voluntarily waive some of their freedoms. The willful relinquishing of personal freedom on behalf of common welfare is known as a social contract. We enter a mutual agreement with society, in which we deliver our rights in exchange for effective government.

Though personal freedoms must be surrendered for this government, there are certain basic freedoms so central to human welfare, that they can never be relinquished. These sacred freedoms are inalienable – they can’t be alienated from a person, but must remain forever theirs. A person’s life, liberty and pursuit of personal happiness are so vital to human experience, that they cannot be suspended under any condition or in the context of any social contract.

In short, democracy balances between which freedoms can be relinquished to governments, and which can never be surrendered. At its heart, democracy was never about preserving rights. Human rights were part of an internal calculus calibrating the boundaries of the social contract and which rights can and cannot be suspended. Democracy was never primarily about rights, but about something larger than the individual- the common good.

DEMANDING OUR RIGHTS

Something happened. Somehow modern democracies morphed into cultures obsessed with the pursuit of human rights. In the past, democracies stirred us to devotion to some larger common agenda. Sadly, today, democracies are often centred upon petty rivalling demands for rights and resources.

Several factors contributed to this decline. Ideally, democracies work best when its citizens share a unifying narrative. When people are unified by a larger common project, they more naturally sense mutual responsibility to that joint endeavour. Immediately after the American Revolution, the young country viewed itself as a global experiment in democracy, or as the “city on the hill”. Likewise, in the 20th century the United States viewed itself as the defender of human liberty against the horrors of Naziism and Communism. Unified by a common narrative, lives were defined by mission and collective responsibility.

Modern society has lost much of that common narrative. Rapid urbanization relocated people from socially connected villages into cold and impersonal cities, making common narratives even more elusive. Fortunately, life in Israel does provide a common unifying narrative, and, by and large, citizens are patriotic about fulfilling their duties and obligations for the common good. At least in this respect, Israeli democracy is healthier than its Western counterparts, many of which have been emptied of a common story.

Additionally, as society expanded, governments became bloated providers of a wide network of services and benefits. Once government becomes a supplier of benefits, people become consumers rather than partners. Politics has begun to resemble the market: no duties, only opportunities for profit.

RELIGIOUS DUTY OR PERSONAL RIGHTS

This cultural shift poses many dangers to modern democracy, but also to religious identity. We have become excessively fixated upon our rights and less upon our duties. We are preoccupied with what we should be receiving, and less attentive to what we should be contributing. We have become consumers and not producers. Religion and moral behaviour challenge us to act selflessly toward Hashem and altruistically toward others. A life pivoted on legal rights is self-centered and self-seeking. Absent a mindset of duty and selflessness, religion becomes hollow. Religion may still be vigilantly practiced, but religious identity becomes faint. Stout religious identity should be crafted upon Rav Moshe Luzzato’s mandate of human duties and less upon modern democracy’s obsession with rights. The Mesillat Yesharim and not the Declaration of Independence.

A CULTURE OF VICTIMHOOD

A second danger in our “culture of rights” is the appeal of collective and personal victimhood. In the modern competition for rights and benefits the best way to triumph is to insist that others recognize your past disadvantage. Any society or group, which, in the past has been most victimized, possess superior virtue and deserves a larger piece of the pie. The politicization of victimhood demands societal recognition of grievance and compensation for collective past suffering. Victimhood becomes a power play. The weaponizing of victimhood is ultimately responsible for the corrosive phenomenon of identity politics and the muddying swirl of intersectionality.

Religion is also threatened by the culture of victimhood. Victimhood breeds hatred and resentment, rather than generosity and compassion. Victimhood paints the world in post Marxist darkness, as a world sharply divided between oppressors and victims. It encourages antagonism and confrontationalism rather than harmony and collaboration. It can divide internal communities just as it divides the body politic. It becomes a mindset which invades every communal setting and even our relationships. Nothing is more destructive to a marriage than victimhood.

Additionally, victimhood enfeebles us rather than empowering us. At some point in their lives, everyone is victimized, either through human misconduct or by forces beyond our control. It is seductively easy to collapse into a state of lack of accountability and thereby release ourselves from responsibility. It is cathartic to convince ourselves that we aren’t culpable because, in the past, we have been the victim.

Any releasing of responsibility is contagious, and will infect our general religious discipline. Once we begin to acquit ourselves of responsibility our religious discipline unravels. We fall down a slippery slope of self-exoneration. There is too much victimhood in our world, and it is suffocating religious aspiration. Every victim faces a choice: to fall into victimhood or to choose redeemed lives of responsibility.

The writer is a rabbi at Yeshivat Har Etzion/Gush, a hesder yeshiva. He has smicha and a BA in computer science from Yeshiva University as well as a masters degree in English literature from the City University of New York.