Skip to main content

Taking the time

Last night I went to a talk given by Dr. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg last night. She spoke about guilt, atonement, and intimacy.

My takeaway from this evening, even as I am still unraveling what she laid out for us is as follows.

Elul has been described as like a bird hovering over a nest - waiting, ready to arrive, not yet there, but at the same time present. From this point she moved to the relationship between G-d and Moshe. After all of Moshe's hard work to build, carefully, diligently, the Tent of Meeting (אוהל מועד), Moshe remains outside, as if hovering over the nest, waiting to enter, unable to enter.

Calling to others - as G-d calls to Moshe - is our way of calling attention to the other with whom we want to speak. Saying a person's name indicates that we have a desire to speak to her and elevates the communication, adding impact and intimacy of the conversation. Interestingly when Israelis talk to each other there is always a great amount of time asking each other how they are, how their day was, what's new, and other permutations of the same phrase. To the American ear and habit it is strangely impersonal, when in fact, it seems to come from a deeply intimate place of building a relationship with someone else. How many Israelis think about this, I don't know. But it is a core part of derech eretz (דרך ארץ).

When we talk to others we open up the potential for enlightenment - something good and transformative can happen when we talk to others. Instead of hovering outside the conversation or the interaction with another, we should grasp the opportunity to connect and talk and see where the intersection of individuals takes us.

The last point she made that I want to revisit brings us then to the issue of intimacy and communication. Looking at the relationship between Moshe and G-d she pointed out that the level of assertiveness on the part of Moshe increased when he was more assertive with G-d. That sounds like a strange way to present the relationship between Moshe, a human, and G-d, the almighty. When looking at the incident with the Golden Calf, Moshe intercedes on behalf of the Israelites - he smashes the Tablets of Jewish Law so that the Israelites would not have had any chance to have knowledge of Jewish Law and thereby transgress the law. And then Moshe spoke with/prayed to G-d on behalf of the Israelites.

This final point is that we are able to be more honest, more open, more assertive with those with whom we are intimate. We can be painfully, even hurtfully, honest with those we view as our allies, with those who have joined with us. Ironic if considered at a superficial level, but supremely rational if considered more deeply.

Much food for thought, for the month of Elul and beyond.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Macher or Schmoozer?

I'm working my way slowly through the book Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam . In a nutshell, which has to be pretty big because it's a hefty book, it's about social behaviors and the decline of them in the US - things like voting and participating in the political process at all levels, and engaging with volunteer and community efforts. Chapter six looks at Informal Social Connections. At paragraph two of the chapter he mentions the Yiddish words macher and schmoozer . That stopped me in my tracks for a moment. He continued to explain that fundamentally a macher is a doer, someone who makes things happen in the community. Whereas a schmoozer is a talker, a person with an active social life, someone who focuses on informal connections to others. And while it is certainly nice to sit and talk with someone, at the end of the day that's all a schmoozer does. Alternatively, the macher will sit and visit with you and then either your roped into helping or the macher...

A very fine line

There is a remarkably fine line between making excuses and offering explanations. It can be quite challenging to know the difference and that confusion can lead to difficulties. We work hard to help our children learn the difference between making an excuse for behavior versus offering an explanation to help figure out how or why something happened. Sometimes it is helpful to get the background but sometimes it just confuses matters. The balance between excuse and explain is similar to the one I have been pondering between blame and responsibility. Sometimes when we are trying to assign responsibility we actually end up placing blame. Both are a bit of a slippery slope that we should only start down with great caution. Strangely the challenge of excuses versus explanations is more easily addressed with children, which also tells me that it's more commonly understood as opposed to blame versus responsibility. We'd all do better to see the fine line between the two.