Our Democratic Conundrum

Our Democratic Conundrum
December 29, 2009

Let’s look at three particularly appalling examples of federal spending.

The federal government spends billions subsidizing corn-based ethanol. Ethanol reduces mileage in cars, causes untold damage in small motors, increases pollution on a life cycle basis, uses more energy to produce than it creates, and has led to food shortages and riots throughout the developing world. There is no sound policy reason for this subsidy.

The federal government spends billions of dollars on the Medicare Advantage program. Created to provide Medigap coverage in rural areas, Medicare Advantage has grown wildly. It costs, on average, 15% more than comparable coverage. The same coverage could be provided directly at far lower cost. There is no sound policy reason for this subsidy.

The federal government continues to buy one new Virginia class submarine each year. Each one costs nearly $3 billion. The Virginia is a fast-attack sub meant to neutralize Soviet fast-attack subs, which do not exist any longer. They are too valuable a platform to use for coastal work or to deliver special operations forces. Their 12 cruise missiles are far too few to be an effective supplement to other stand-off assets. It is a boat without a mission. There is no sound policy reason for this subsidy.

Yet, billions are wasted on these three, and hundreds of other, foolish and hideously expensive federal programs. Why? Because there are powerful political forces that ensure that these subsidies continue. Surely, some of those forces are vested economic interests, like agribusiness, defense contractors, and health insurance companies. Some of the pressure comes from labor unions and local municipalities. And, much comes from local constituent pressure.

The fact is that the US budget deficit is wildly out of control with this past year’s deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion. Our national debt is the highest, as a ratio to GDP, in history and is projected to triple over the next 20 years. This load of debt is unsustainable, both because it is owed to foreigners who will increasingly intervene in our affairs to protect its investment and because debt leads inexorably to hyperinflation. We need to reduce the debt. It is no longer a choice between cutting spending and raising taxes. We need to do both. Aggressively. Now.

Yet, the continued existence, and indeed expansion, of these wasteful programs makes it clear that Congress cannot handle the task. On one level, we face the partisan wars where the tea-baggers and birthers accuse Democrats of being socialists when they mention revenue enhancement and labor unions and liberal interest groups accuse Republicans of killing the poor whenever they propose cuts in social programs. On another level, we have individual members of Congress who need millions for re-election. That money can only come from special interests who expect favors in return. And, no member of Congress has ever secured reelection by cutting a special benefit for his or her district, whether that benefit be subsidies to farmers, construction of submarines, or a gold-plated version of Medicare.

The alternative is to turn these policy decisions over to the Executive Branch, whether directly to a federal agency or indirectly to a commission. Such a delegation clearly flies in the face of representative democracy. We have, of course, done it in the past on base closure and social security, and there are those pushing for such an undemocratic delegation to a commission now. In fact, it may be the only way to deal with the debt.

Still, I am troubled by the future of American democracy. Clearly, full public funding of congressional campaigns and eliminating free speech protection for corporations would help, but the current Supreme Court will block both of these routes. Even these changes would not reduce constituent pressure for special benefits and would weaken but not eliminate special interest pressure on members of Congress.

I have no solution. Some say we need stronger members of Congress with more integrity. This is a rather silly proposition. The Constitution is based on members of Congress and Senators seeking re-election. That is where their accountability to their constituents in enforced. The system is not based on elected representatives doing things their constituents oppose. Our current crop of Senators and Representatives contains geniuses and idiots, heroes and cowards, honest folks and crooks. Under the Constitution, their job is to secure re-election. Under the current rules, raising money from special interest groups is one essential way to do that. And, of course, that special interest money comes with strings.

Again, I have no solution. I do seeing our debt crisis leading to the greatest challenge in American history. Unless we find a way out of this conundrum, our existence as a nation is threatened in a way more immediate and profound than every before.

District Cannot Retaliate Against Teacher for Reporting IDEA Violations

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN LEE BARKER, ü
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-56313
v. ý D.C. No. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF CV-07-00274-SGL
EDUCATION, OPINION
Defendant-Appellee. þ
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
December 12, 2008—Pasadena, California
Filed October 23, 2009
Before: Harry Pregerson and Dorothy W. Nelson, Circuit
Judges, and James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Pregerson
*The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
14293
COUNSEL
Janice S. Cleveland, Law offices of Janice S. Cleveland, Riverside,
California, and Gary S. Bennett, Law Offices of Gary
S. Bennett, Laguna Hills, California, for the plaintiffappellant.
Jennifer D. Cantrell and Mark W. Thompson, Atkinson,
Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Riverside, California, for the
defendant-appellee.
OPINION
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Susan Lee Barker was employed by the Riverside County
Office of Education as a Resource Specialist Program teacher
for students with disabilities. She brought suit against her
employer based on constructive termination arising out of an
intolerable work environment. Barker’s complaint alleged that
her supervisors at the Riverside County Office of Education
retaliated against her after she voiced concerns that the Riverside
County Office of Education was not complying with
requirements of federal and state law in how it provided educational
services to its disabled students. The district court
dismissed Barker’s lawsuit for lack of standing. Barker argues
that she has standing to sue the Riverside County Office of
14296 BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Education pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of both
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We agree with
Barker and therefore reverse and remand.
I. Background
Barker was employed as an itinerant Resource Specialist
Program teacher for students with disabilities within the
Alternative Education Program of the Riverside County
Office of Education from May 13, 2002 through August 1,
2006. Indeed, Barker was the most experienced special education
teacher at the Riverside County Office of Education.
Barker was regularly asked by other teachers to interpret educational
test results, and she received three or four telephone
calls per day from her colleagues requesting her opinion and
assistance in regard to special education issues with students.
Beginning as early as 2003, Barker voiced concerns to her
supervisors that the special education services provided by the
Riverside County Office of Education to its disabled students
were noncompliant with federal and state law. In May 2005,
Barker and a coworker filed a class discrimination complaint
with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights. The class discrimination complaint filed with the
Office for Civil Rights alleged that the Riverside County
Office of Education denied its disabled students a free appropriate
public education that they are entitled to receive under
federal and state law.
In June 2005, Barker’s supervisors at the Riverside County
Office of Education first learned that Barker filed the class
discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s
Office for Civil Rights. In the constructive termination
action now before us, Barker alleges that her supervisors then
retaliated against her throughout the following school year by
BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 14297
1. intimidating Barker for filing the class discrimination
complaint with the Office for Civil
Rights;
2. failing to respond to Barker’s emails and phone
calls;
3. excluding Barker from important staff meetings;
4. changing Barker’s work assignments to sites
further from her home;
5. reducing Barker’s caseload even though the Riverside
County Office of Education’s Alternative
Education’s disabled student population
increased; and
6. refusing to allow Barker to fill in for other
teachers during their vacations.
Barker further alleged that she was constructively terminated
on August 1, 2006 because her supervisors subjected her to an
intolerable work environment.
On July 13, 2005, Barker submitted a written complaint to
the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights,
alleging that the Riverside County Office of Education retaliated
against her for advocating on behalf of her students with
disabilities and for filing a complaint with the Office for Civil
Rights. The Office for Civil Rights subsequently conducted
an investigation into Barker’s complaint by gathering evidence
through interviews with Barker and fifteen current and
former Riverside County Office of Education staff and administrators,
and reviewing documents and records submitted by
Barker and the Riverside County Office of Education.
On June 16, 2006, the Office for Civil Rights determined
that the “preponderance of the evidence showed that [the Riv-
14298 BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
erside County Office of Education] retaliated against [Barker]
in violation of Section 504 [and] Title II . . . .” The Office for
Civil Rights further stated that “[a]dvocacy on behalf of disabled
students on issues related to their civil rights, and the
filing of [Office for Civil Rights] complaints, are protected
activities under Section 504 and Title II.”
Barker then filed a complaint in federal district court contending
that the Riverside County Office of Education violated
the anti-retaliation provisions of both § 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act by retaliating against her after she advocated
on behalf of her students with disabilities. In August 2007,
following the Riverside County Office of Education’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, the district court found that Barker
did not have standing to sue under either statute and dismissed
her claim with prejudice. Barker timely appealed.
II. Standard of Review
The district court’s dismissal of an action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Zimmerman v. Or.
Dep’t of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th Cir. 1999). “Because
this is an appeal from the dismissal of an action pursuant
to Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we accept as true the facts
alleged in the complaint.” Id. at 1171. Moreover, we must
draw inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
III. Discussion
A. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Barker contends that she has standing1 to sue her employer,
1Although Barker’s standing to sue the Riverside County Office of Education
pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA is under review in
this case, Barker unquestionably meets the constitutional standing require-
BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 14299
the Riverside County Office of Education, for retaliating
against her pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
She argues that section 504 grants standing to individuals who
are retaliated against for attempting to protect the rights of
disabled people, even if they themselves are not disabled. The
Riverside County Office of Education, however, argues that
because Barker failed to allege that she was a “qualified individual
with a disability,” see 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), she cannot
avail herself of the Rehabilitation Act’s protection against
retaliation. According to the Riverside County Office of Education,
Section 504 was not “intended to provide redress of
employment claims for persons who [are] neither disabled
themselves, nor have any close relationship to a disabled person.”
Contrary to the Riverside County Office of Education’s
arguments, we find that the anti-retaliation provision of section
504 grants standing to non-disabled people who are retaliated
against for attempting to protect the rights of the
disabled.
In determining whether Barker has standing under section
504, we begin by examining the statute’s plain meaning. See
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 732 (9th Cir. 2007).
When “the statutory language is clear and consistent with the
statutory scheme at issue, the plain language of the statute is
conclusive and the judicial inquiry is at an end.” Id. Section
504(a) states:
ments of Article III. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for
Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). First,
Barker alleges an actual injury—that she was constructively terminated
from her job as a special education teacher with the Riverside County
Office of Education. See id. Second, Barker’s injury “fairly can be traced
to the challenged action,” because Barker alleges that she was constructively
terminated based solely upon the intolerable work environment created
by the Riverside County Office of Education. See id. (quoting Simon
v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41 (1976)). Third, Barker’s
injury “is likely to be redressed” by the compensatory damages requested.
See id. (quoting Simon, 426 U.S. at 38).
14300 BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in
the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her
or his disability, be excluded from the participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance . . . .
29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (codifying Section 504). Section 504
incorporates the anti-retaliation provision of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 by providing that:
The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . shall be available
to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to
act by any recipient of Federal assistance . . . .
29 U.S.C. § 794a(2) (emphasis added).2 The anti-retaliation
provision of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act incorporated by
section 504 states:
No recipient or other person shall intimidate,
threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual
for the purpose of interfering with any right or
privilege secured by Section 601 of [the Civil
Rights] Act or this part, or because he has made a
complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing
under this part.
34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (emphasis added). This regulation
applies to all rights secured by the Rehabilitation Act pursuant
to 34 C.F.R. § 104.61. In other words, the anti-retaliation provision
in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act has been incorporated
by the Rehabilitation Act so as to extend the
2See also Weber v. Cranston Sch. Comm., 212 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir.
2000) (noting that Section 504 integrates the anti-retaliation provision of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act).
BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 14301
Rehabilitation Act’s protections to “ ‘any individual’ who has
been intimidated, threatened, coerced, or discriminated
against ‘for the purpose of interfering with [protected rights]’
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or the Rehabilitation
Act.” Weber, 212 F.3d at 48 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e))
(citing § 104.61) (granting standing under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act to a mother who claimed the school system
had retaliated against her personally for attempting to enforce
her disabled child’s rights).
[1] Contrary to the Riverside County Office of Education’s
arguments, the broad statutory language in section 504 and its
corresponding anti-retaliation provision in Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act does not demonstrate that Congress intended
to limit standing under section 504 to only those with disabilities.
3 Section 504 and its anti-retaliation provision use the allinclusive
phrases “any person aggrieved” and “any individual,”
and no language further limits who “any person
aggrieved” or “any individual” may be. In particular, the statutes
do not include language requiring such individuals to
have disabilities in order to have standing. Nor do they
require the protected individual to have any “close relation-
3In Settlegoode v. Portland Schools, 371 F.3d 503, 512 n.6 (9th Cir.
2004), we upheld a jury’s verdict in favor of a special education teacher
who sued her school district for retaliation pursuant to section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. The teacher sued because the district did not renew her
teaching contract after she voiced concerns that the district was discriminating
against her disabled students. Id. at 507. In our Settlegoode opinion,
however, we did not directly examine whether the teacher had standing
pursuant to section 504.
As a matter of interest, in an unpublished disposition we also extended
protection against retaliation under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
to a school psychiatrist who advocated on behalf of her disabled students.
See Sweet v. Tigard-Tualatin School District, No. 03-35455, 2005 WL
19531, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2005); see also Corrales v. Moreno Valley
Unified Sch. Dist., No. EDCV-08-00040-SGL, 2008 WL 4382507, at *2-
3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008) (granting standing under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act to a special education teacher whose teaching contract
was not renewed after she advocated for her students with disabilities).
14302 BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
ship to a disabled person,” as argued by the Riverside County
Office of Education. Indeed, the use of “such broad language”
in the statutes “evinces a congressional intention to define
standing to bring a private action under 504 . . . as broadly as
is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.” Innovative
Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 47 (2nd
Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Trafficante
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972)
(holding that the term “aggrieved person” in section 810(a) of
the Fair Housing Act demonstrated Congress’s “intention to
define standing as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the
Constitution”)) (holding that a drug and alcohol rehabilitation
center had standing pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act to sue a city for discriminatory motives in denying
a building permit).
[2] Such reasoning is consistent with Congress’s statutory
goal to protect the rights of the disabled. While “Congress
could have limited the remedial provisions of the Rehabilitation
Act to claims brought by or on behalf of disabled individuals,
it did not do so in apparent recognition of the fact that
disabled individuals may need assistance in vindicating their
rights . . . . ” Weber, 212 F.3d at 49. Indeed, empathetic people
who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are
those most likely to recognize their mistreatment and to advocate
on their behalf.
[3] Furthermore, while not controlling authority, it is persuasive
that after completing an investigation into Barker’s
complaint, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights concluded that “[a]dvocacy on behalf of disabled students
on issues related to their civil rights, and the filing of
[Office for Civil Rights] complaints, are protected activities
under Section 504 and Title II.”4 See Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
4Also persuasive is the Office for Civil Rights’ conclusion that “the preponderance
of the evidence showed that [the Riverside County Office of
Education] retaliated against [Barker] in violation of Section 504 [and]
Title II . . . . ”
BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 14303
323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944) (holding that “while [non-binding
agency opinions are] not controlling upon the courts by reason
of their authority, [these opinions] do constitute a body of
experience . . . . that give [them] power to persuade, if lacking
power to control”); see also Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales,
455 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2006).
[4] Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in its
determination that Barker lacked standing under section 504,
and we reverse.
B. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Barker contends that she also has standing to sue the Riverside
County Office of Education under Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Again, the Riverside
County Office of Education alleges that Barker does not have
standing to sue under Title II because Barker is not a “qualified
individual with a disability.” See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. We
find that Barker does have standing under Title II for the same
reasons that she has standing under section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act. Cf Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d at 46-48
(holding that a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center had
standing to sue the city of White Plains for its discriminatory
motives in denying the center a building permit under Title II
of the ADA).
[5] We begin by examining whether the plain meaning of
the language used in Title II of the ADA and its antiretaliation
provisions grant standing to non-disabled individuals
who are retaliated against for attempting to protect the
rights of the disabled. See Molski, 481 F.3d at 732. Title II of
the ADA provides:
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of
such disability, be excluded from participation in or
be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or
14304 BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination
by any such entity.
42 U.S.C. § 12132. The anti-retaliation provisions of Title II
of the ADA state:
(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate
against any individual because that individual has
opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this
part, or because that individual made a charge, testified,
assisted, or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act
or this part.
(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate,
threaten, or interfere with any individual in the
exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her
having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or
her having aided or encouraged any other individual
in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or
protected by the Act or this part.
28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (emphasis added). As in our analysis of
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the language employed
in the anti-retaliation provisions of Title II does not evince a
congressional intent to limit standing to individuals with disabilities.
Instead, the use of the phrase “any individual” and
the absence of any language limiting standing to those with
disabilities indicates Congress’s intent to grant standing under
Title II “as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.”
See Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d at 47 (citing
Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., Co., 409 U.S. 205,
209(1972)). As we recognized in our Rehabilitation Act analysis,
it appears that in formulating the language in Title II’s
anti-retaliation provisions, Congress recognized that disabled
individuals may require assistance from others to defend their
rights. Cf. Weber, 212 F.3d at 49 (While “Congress could
have limited the remedial provisions of [Title II] to claims
BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 14305
brought by or on behalf of disabled individuals, it did not do
so in apparent recognition of the fact that disabled individuals
may need assistance in vindicating their rights . . . . ”).
Indeed, we find that the language of Title II’s antiretaliation
provisions set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 grants
standing to Barker. Clause (a) of § 35.134 protects “any individual”
who “has opposed any act or practice made unlawful
by this part.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (emphasis added). Because
Barker engaged in activities opposing her school’s special
education policies that allegedly violated the ADA, we find
that she had standing to pursue her claim under clause (a).
Furthermore, clause (b) protects “any individual” from being
“coerce[d], intimidate[d], threaten[ed], or interfere[d] with”
by a “public entity” “on account of . . . her having aided or
encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment
of, any right granted or protected by the Act.” Id. (emphasis
added). Because Barker alleges that she was intimidated by
her supervisor for her role in advocating for her students, we
find that Barker also has standing under clause (b) of Title II’s
anti-retaliation provision.
The district court’s reliance on Zimmerman v. Oregon
Department of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999) in determining
that Barker lacked standing under Title II of the ADA
was misguided. In Zimmerman, the plaintiff alleged that he
was fired from his job because of his visual impairment in
violation of Title II of the ADA. Id. at 1171. We held in Zimmerman
that the plaintiff ’s claim should have been brought
under Title I of the ADA instead of under Title II, because the
plaintiff claimed that his employer discriminated against him
because he had a disability, and employment violations are
protected under “Title I: Employment.” Id. at 1178. Here,
relying on Zimmerman, the district court incorrectly found
that because Barker also claimed that she was discriminated
against by her employer, Barker would similarly only have
standing under Title I of the ADA.
14306 BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
[6] Contrary to the district court’s finding, Barker’s situation
can easily be distinguished from that in Zimmerman.
Unlike Zimmerman, Barker does not allege that she lost her
job because her employer discriminated against her because
of a disability she had. Instead, Barker alleges that she was
retaliated against and subsequently lost her job because she
advocated for disabled students who were receiving inadequate
public services—educational services provided by a
public school—which are covered under Title II of the ADA
(“Title II: Public Services”). See 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.
Public services provided to disabled students are the focus of
Title II of the ADA. See id. Thus, Barker’s claim was appropriately
brought under Title II. Accordingly, the district court
erred in determining that our holding in Zimmerman “compell[
ed] a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Weber court.”5
Instead, our finding that Barker has standing to bring a claim
against the Riverside County Office of Education under Title
II of the ADA is consistent with our holding in Zimmerman.
IV. Conclusion
[7] Having concluded that Barker has standing to pursue
her retaliation claims under both section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act and Title II of the ADA, we reverse and remand to
the district court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
5The district court also found that “the Zimmerman case foreclose[d]
[Barker]’s claim based on 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,” because a “sideby-
side comparison of the relevant statutory language” in section 504 and
Title II of the ADA shows that the two statutes are “virtually identical.”
Again, we find that the district court erred in finding that Zimmerman
“compell[ed] a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Weber court”
under section 504.
BARKER v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 14307

Liz and Andy in Cogne

Don’t you hate superlatives in letters home from tourists abroad? A number of people have asked for a narrative of our voyage to Northern Italy. I intend to oblige in a fairly matter of fact manner. I do so to avoid refuge to my thesaurus to find adjectives for great or beautiful or delicious.

We arrived at Milan’s Malpensa Airport on Friday morning, October 2, after an uneventful flight (the best type) from JFK. We rented a Mercedes A160 from Hertz, a small diesel that appears to be getting 50 mpg or better along with a GPS containing a rather scattered, inconsistent, inaccurate, yet arrogant British woman. She is a companion we tolerate and frequently abuse on drives.

We traveled up the autostrada into the Alps, stopping first to wander the streets of Aosta, the provincial capital, before driving up the Cogne Valley to Cogne, where we checked in at the Hotel Bellevue. We arrived in paradise. I say this in a matter of fact way. If I believed in heaven, the Hotel Bellevue in Cogne would be it. From there, we hiked up the banks of Gran Paradisio, a 13,000 foot glacier covered peak. At the Bellevue, we ate a tasting menu at the Michelin 1 Star Petit Restaurant. Our room had a balcony from which we looked up to the summit of Gran Paradisio. On Saturday, the town was enveloped in the annual festival when the cows that graze on the high mountain meadows during the summer come down to their valley pens. Each cow wore a large bell that clanged through the night. One of the nicest features of the hotel, which was filled with antiques, was that there was always food on the bar: pastries in the morning, bruchetta and sliced meats in the afternoon, crystallized ginger, and butter-rich cookies. Perhaps some pictures would augment the description:



The view from our room. Cogne is at 1534 meters. Grad Paradisio summits at 4061 meters.




Off the other side of the balcony, this is a view of the town of Cogne. It looks more Swiss or German than Italian. And, indeed, Cogne is only one hour from Switzerland and one hour from France.



The hotel is not as pink as it looks in this picture. Everything about it was quite tasteful.




High above the town of Valnontey, which is the highest town in the Cogne Valley, is an alpine botanical garden which closes in September. In early June, it is alive with flowers.



Liz on the trail above Valnontey. The summit of Gran Paradisio is behind her, but bleached out in the photograph. Notice her Swiss look.

One of the highlights of Cogne was the cow parade. Liz ran down off the mountain to catch up with a herd heading into town. She paraded with them in front of the crowds on the street.



Note the size of the cowbells.




We had the sense that the cowherds always dressed that way. The Tyrolian look was not just for the benefit of the festival.

The most important point, of course, is that these cows, fed on mountain herbs for five months each year, produce the milk that makes the fontina and fromadzos we enjoyed so much.



The cows encamped directly below our window. Despite the similarity in size, the large beast in the front is me, not a cow.



Which brings me to the issue of food. Just below our room was the hotel’s herb garden. Whenever we ordered a meal, a member of the kitchen staff would walk outside to pick the herbs necessary for the dish. Our tasting menu at Petit Restaurant on Saturday evening consisted of the following eight courses:

A scallop set in a bisque of mild fish stock and sorrel.
Pureed dried cod in a napoleon of translucent potato chips over a bed of diced fresh vegetables.
Goose liver with poached peaches and pears in a fig reduction.
A tomato risotto cooked in a ramekin skinned with thin tomato slices, with a huge lagostine.
Cheek of veal, finished with dill.
A cheese course consisting of four cow cheeses and four goat cheeses of the region.
A dessert plate containing eight desserts ranging from an Aostian custard made of hazelnuts to a yogurt gelato.
A plate of truffles: the chocolate stuffed variety, not the fungus which is the mission of this trip.



Paradise, as I said.

Topics in Kabbalah

Topics in Kabbalah
Andrew Feinstein
September 28, 2009

1. Introduction

Our Yom Kippur class this year is on the Kabbalah. I must confess that I cannot precisely define what Kabbalah is. I can say Kabbalah is the mystical, magical, spiritual, folklore-ish, fantasy-based, popular, insular, primitive, and highly sexual form of Judaism that developed in Spain and Eastern Europe in the late middle ages. In many ways, Kabbalah is the antithesis of modern, American Reform Judaism, with its focus on rationality, individual responsibility, and involvement in the world.

Don’t be misled by the adjectives I used to describe Kabbalah. Many of the leaders and practitioners of Kabbalah were highly observant, Halakhah-bound Jews. For them, Kabbalah was not a frontal attack on traditional, rabbinic Judaism; instead, they found rabbinic Judaism too limiting, insufficiently spiritual. So, Kabbalah was an added ingredient to make their lives more meaningful. The traditional rabbis, however, reacted with hostility and contempt. It was through that reaction that Kabbalah became antagonistic to rabbinic Judaism.

Speaking meaningfully of Kabbalah in general terms is impossible. It was a powerful current in Judaism for 800 years and bubbled up in Spain, Poland, France, Italy, Palestine, and Egypt. What came to the surface in each of these places and at differing times from 1160 to 1940 varied widely. What remained constant were the esoteric nature and the supernatural belief. As I noted in my sermon on the Golem in July, even a very tangible concept like the Golem morphs from place to place and from time to time.

Kabbalah has, as you know, become a plaything of New Agers. I went on Barnes and Noble.com and came up with 1,547 books with Kabbalah in the title, including “God Wears Lipstick: Kabbalah for Women”, “The Power of Kabbalah: Technology for the Soul”, “The Spiritual Rules of Engagement: How Kabbalah Can Help Your Soulmate Find You”, “The Kabbalah Code: A True Adventure”, “Kabbalah and the Power of Dreaming: Awakening the Visionary Life”, and, of course, “Kabbalah for Dummies”. I have not read these books and cannot say whether they are Madonna’s Kabbalah or not. I can say that the most scholarly, serious and reliable books on the Kabbalah were written by Gershom Scholem in the 1940’s and 1950’s, including “Kabbalah”, “On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism” and “Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism.” If you are serious about learning Kabbalah, read Scholem. If you are looking for a woo-woo vocabulary to go with you hot yoga, Birkenstocks, and vegan diet, don’t bother.

I must admit that I am flummoxed at trying to arrive at a coherent point to synthesize Kabbalah. So, rather than attempting to synthesize Kabbalah into a coherent, homogenous structure, I will pick a number of the better-known and more interesting topics and give you a little introduction to each. I will cover sefirot, the Zohar, the Tetragrammaton, Shabbatei Zvi, gematria, Lilith, and Hasidism. This leaves much uncovered, particularly demonology, eschatology, Matatron, Samael, dybbuks, Issac Luria, the soul, and onanism.

Kabbalah is an incredibly rich vein to mine. I must admit that, other than my historical interest and my addiction to mind candy, I don’t see any reason to do so. Kabbalah does not provide any moral compass. Kabbalah does not explain life or my relationship to God to me. Yes, it is important to know where we come from to know where we are going. And, Martin Buber, who does provide a moral compass, who does explain life and my relationship to God, was a product of Kabbalism. So, some understand of the Kabbalah is helpful background. Still, to me, Kabbalah is not the secret path to understanding claimed by its practitioners in 1650 and in 2009.

2. Sefirot

Let’s begin with Sefirot, or emanations. According to the dictionary, an emanation is “the origination of the world by a series of hierarchically descending radiations from the Godhead through intermediate stages to matter.” Stated otherwise, the concept of emanation is that all derived or secondary things proceed or flow from the more primary. It is distinguished from the doctrine of creation by its elimination of a definite will in the first cause, from which all things are made to emanate according to natural laws and without conscious volition. It differs from the theory of formation at the hands of a supreme artisan who finds his matter ready to his hand, in teaching that all things, whether actually or only apparently material, flow from the primal principle. Unlike evolution, again, which includes the entire principle of the world, material and spiritual, in the process of development, emanation holds to the immutability of the first principle as to both quality and quantity, and also in the tendency of the development evolution implying one which goes from less to more perfect, while emanation involves a series of descending stages.

In Kabbalah, there are ten emanations. They come from the Ein Sof, the Godhead. They are part of our bodies or, more precisely, they become our bodies. They are the way God reveals Himself. They are also the conduits that connect us to every other human being. Let me be clear on that. My heart is connected to your heart because both our hearts are the projection of God’s emanation on us. Emanations are not one way. My heart communicates directly with your heart through the radio channel created by God’s emanations.

I am sure you have seen the classic drawing of the eleven sefirot. Wait, you say, I just said there were ten. There are 10, but the center core, Da’at, is the pivot point that merges the intellectual and the emotional. And, the Keter and the Da’at are just the conscious and unconscious manifestation of the same principal. Obviously, the notion of ten emanations creates conflict with the single God theology of classical Judaism. Is Kabbalah polytheistic? Not really, but the godhead referenced is the Ein Sof, or Without Limit. If God is everything and limitless, it makes little sense to speak of God as one or as many. The fact that the emanations make up the human does not make the human divine. The earthly beings are human and the emanations are the archetypes. Sounds a tad Jungian, right? Sometimes emanations are referred to as powers or lights or divine intellects.

The emanations are clearly the revelation of God. Here is how it works. We cannot hear divine speech. Rather, when God talks we pick it up as thoughts. The other emanations work the same way. We do not see the divine expression. We see its manifestation. Remember Plato’s image of the shadows on the wall of the cave. There is something highly platonic about sefirot. The term “sefirot” roots in the same word as the word “sapphire”. The sephirot are the divine radiance. Compare that to the seven Hindu Chakras, which are seen as energy sources within the body. Sefirot are manifestations in the human of attributes of God. Chakras are internal energy sources.

From highest to lowest, the ten sephirot are the Keter or Crown, the infinite light of the Creator, which is the name of God in Exodus: Ehyeh Asher Ehyer, I am what I am. This sephirah exists above intellectual consciousness. There are then sephirot that are the conscious intellectual powers: Hokhman or wisdom and Binah or understanding. Hokhman, which is the flash of an idea before it is delimited, is male, while Binah, the flash of understanding that gives birth to emotions, reason, and understanding is female. In the middle is Da’at, which is the conscious intellectual understanding of God. D’at is the central state of unity or the Tree of Life. These are followed by the six conscious emotional powers: Chesed or kindness, Gevurah or severity, Tiferet or beauty, Netzach which is victory or persistence, Hod or glory, surrender, withdrawal, and Yesod, foundation or coherent knowledge. The first three: kindness, severity and beauty are primary. Victory, glory, and foundation are secondary emotions needed to implement the primary emotions. Finally, at the bottom we come to the female sephirah of Machut or kingship.

These ten sephirot are associated with the four planes of existence of the Zohar. Each plane is progressively further removed from consciousness of the divine, until, in our world, it is possible to deny God. The four worlds are the world of emanation in which the light of the Ein Sof radiates, the world of creation, the world where souls and angels have self-awareness but no form, the world of formation, where form and limitations occur, and finally, the world of action which is physical. There are also three pillars, the central pillar of mildness, the right pillar of mercy, and the left pillar of severity.

Okay, so what? Are the sephirot just some bizarre and opaque way to understand the world, having the same aim as the Hindu Chakras or Freud’s ego, id, and super ego? The answer is yes, but the critical difference is that the sephirot come directly from God. Humans are merely the screens on which God projects His characteristics. Sefirot are not intermediary beings; they are God Himself. The model used is the candle that can light other candles and lose none of its own radiance. And so, the sephirot are part of the world of unification, as opposed to the world of separation.

The doctrine of the sephirot is the main tenet dividing the Kabbalah from traditional Jewish philosophy. Jewish philosophy, particularly the dividing of the attributes of action from the essential attributed of God, was transformed by Kabbalah into the theosophic concept of a Godhead which was divided into realms or planes which, in the eyes of the beholder, appeared as lights, potencies, and intelligences, each of unlimited richness and profundity, whose content man could study and seek to penetrate. Indeed, the anatomical structure of the sephirot soon led to a description of God based on the human structure. To oversimplify, Kabbalism says that we are fundamentally divine. Traditional Judaism says we are fundamentally human.

This tree of ten or eleven sephirot became the source of wild mathematical and organic imagery. The top and bottom five, the three columns, the male/female split, four elements, four winds, four metals. For Jewish voodoo, little beats the emanations. Each sephirah is connected to every other sephirah and each line of connection is identified with specific characteristics of God. To make matters more interesting, each sephirah comprises all others successively in an infinite reflection. So, for example, there are 620 pillars of light in Keter, and 32 ways in Hokhman, 50 gates in Binah, and 72 bridges in Chesed.

Let me try to put this together. Kabbalah is esoteric, meaning that it was internal knowledge not generally accessible to outsiders. Kabbalah is Gnostic, focusing on the secret meaning of words. Kabbalah is highly symbolic. Kabbalah is filled with mathematical and logic tricks and games. Kabbalism, like Judaism, was fundamentally aimed at understanding human’s relationship to God. Obviously, humans have a somewhat better understanding of how humans work than how God works. So, the Kabbalists created a vision of God as a projection of the human. Instead of creating humans in God’s image, the Kabbalists created a God in human image. In doing so, they departed, in a very fundamental way, from traditional Judaism. But, they also created a philosophy of God that was far more immediate, far more accessible than what traditional Judaism offered.

3. The Zohar

I will now move on to the Zohar. The word means radiance and refers to a group of books that form the spine of Kabbalah. Written primarily in 13th Century Spain, but claimed to have been written in 2nd Century Palestine, the Zohar is asserted by Kabbalists to be an essential part of the Oral Torah. As you know, the Written Torah is the Pentateuch, the five books. Everything else -- the prophets, the writings, the apocryphal, the Talmud, the Midrash – is part of the Oral Torah. The Zohar was likely written by Moses de Leon in the 1200’s, but he claims that the book was written by Shimon bar Yachi in the 2nd century. Legend holds that during a time of Roman persecution, Rabbi Shimon hid in a cave for 13 years, studying the Torah with his son, Elazar. During this time he is said to have been inspired by the prophet Elijah to write the Zohar.

So, what is the Zohar? First and foremost, it is well-nigh unreadable. It does embrace of dualistic view of deity. In Eros and Kabbalah, Moshe Idel of Hebrew University argues that the fundamental distinction between the rational-philosophic strain of Judaism and theosophic-mystical Judaism, as exemplified by the Zohar, is the mystical belief that the Godhead is complex, rather than simple, and that divinity is dynamic and incorporates gender, having both male and female dimensions. These polarities must be conjoined (have yihud, "union") to maintain the harmony of the cosmos. Professor Idel labels this point of view as "ditheism," holding that there are two aspects to God, and the process of union as "theoeroticism." This ditheism, the dynamics it entails, and its reverberations within creation is arguably the central interest of the Zohar, making up a huge proportion of its content.

An alternative approach is set forth by Professor Elliot Wolfson of NYU. Wolfson likewise recognizes the importance of heteroerotic symbolism in the Kabbalistic understanding of the divine nature. The oneness of God is perceived in androgynous terms as the pairing of male and female, the former characterized as the capacity to overflow and the latter as the potential to receive. Where Wolfson breaks with Idel and other scholars of the Kabbalah is in his insistence that the consequence of that heteroerotic union is the restoration of the female to the male. Just as, in the case of the original Adam, woman was constructed from man, and their carnal cleaving together was portrayed as becoming one flesh, so the ideal for kabbalists is the reconstitution of what Wolfson calls the male androgyne. Much closer in spirit to some ancient Gnostic dicta, Wolfson understands the eschatological ideal in traditional Kabbalah to have been the female becoming male. So we go from the sexual to the sexist.

Let me read you a sample of the Zohar:

Woe unto the man, says Shimon ben Yochai, who asserts that this Torah intends to relate only commonplace things and secular narratives; for if this were so, then in the present times likewise a Torah might be written with more attractive narratives. In truth, however, the matter is thus: The upper world and the lower are established upon one and the same principle; in the lower world is Israel, in the upper world are the angels. When the angels wish to descend to the lower world, they have to don earthly garments. If this be true of the angels, how much more so of the Torah, for whose sake, indeed, the world and the angels were alike created and exist. The world could simply not have endured to look upon it. Now the narratives of the Torah are its garments. He who thinks that these garments are the Torah itself deserves to perish and have no share in the world to come. Woe unto the fools who look no further when they see an elegant robe! More valuable than the garment is the body which carries it, and more valuable even than that is the soul which animates the body. Fools see only the garment of the Torah, the more intelligent see the body, the wise see the soul, its proper being; and in the Messianic time the 'upper soul' of the Torah will stand revealed.

If this is confusing, perhaps the confusion can be lifted if you stop thinking of the Torah as a book or a scroll. No, to the Zohar, the Torah is a living organism, a sentient being. The Torah dons clothes just like you and I do.

The Zohar posits four types of biblical interpretation: Peshat, or literal meaning, Remez, allusion or allegorical meaning, Derash, by compassion or illustration, that is, the metaphorical meaning, and Sod, its secret, hidden meaning. The initial letters of the words form together the word Pardes, which means paradise. The mystic meaning is the highest essence of Torah.

Kabbalism holds that the Torah is a living organism woven of holy names that not only denote the object referred to but are the object. In fact, the Torah is seen as the Name of God and a living body with a soul. The Torah differs from your body and mine in only one meaningful way: we have organs that are not vital. There is no part of the Torah that is not essential. Obscure, apparently meaningless passages form the springboard from which the Zohar leaps. By the way, the heart of the organism is the written Torah. The mouth is the oral Torah. The words do not serve as symbols to denote something else. The words are the thing in itself. Words, hence, have power, perform magic.

4. The Tetragrammaton

This leads us to a discussion of the Tetragrammaton of the name of God. The most closely guarded and most sought-after of secret knowledge has to do with the Tetragrammaton Yud Hay Vav Hay. These four letters form the secret name of God. Is it Yahweh or Jehovah or Adonai? Do you read the letters backwards as Hu Hi or He/She? If we knew how to pronounce these letters, the mystics claimed, we would have the power of God. The word is the power. And, the power of God is, as we know from Genesis 1, the power to create life. The Kabbalists did not stop with the Tetragrammaton. They believed the entire Torah was the name of God. The spaces and the vowels were just one way of reading the scroll. Divide the letters differently, use different vowels, and you have another true story of human creation.

And why would the Torah begin with a Bet, not an Aleph? An Aleph has no sound of its own; it takes its sound from the vowels and the surrounding letters. What is the Aleph but a breath of air? Is it not the breath of God that created Adam in Genesis 2? By the way, the Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text of both the Bible. It does not appear in the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, or Esther. It first appears in the Hebrew text in Genesis 2:4.

The take away from this is Kabbalah is filled with magic. The Tetragrammaton is very much like Abracadabra in Fantasia. Say the secret word, win the power to create the world. Words have power. Words are living beings. The positive message is to be careful what you say because words have far more power than we know. The downside is that this leads to a fanciful view of reality.

5. Shabbetai Zvi

And speaking of fanciful views of reality, I will now discuss perhaps the most bizarre character in the entire history of Judaism, Shabbetai Zvi. Even after Shabbetai’s departure from Judaism, the Shabbatean Movement continued and, in fact, continues to this day. Judaism has always been a messianic religion, praying for the coming of the Moshiach, so the claims of Shabbetai fell on fertile ground. Yet, the 1660’s were a particularly propitious time for such claims due to the wave of anti-Jewish persecution in Poland and Russia starting with the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648. This was followed by the Russian-Swedish war of 1655 that was fought literally over the homes of the Jews. Torment, misery and oppression were more than traditional Judaism could explain. At the same time, Kabbalah’s spiritual renewal in Safed, under the leadership of Issac Luria was spreading and becoming dominant in Jewish life throughout the world. The Lurianic form of Kabbalism was more mystical than the older contemplative form.

Zvi was born in Smyrna, a major trading center, allegedly on the 9th of Av, a Sabbath no less, in 1626. Shabbatai’s father, Mordecai, was a poor chicken dealer from the country. He moved to Smyrna, became the agent of an English trading house, and became quite wealthy. At Cheder Shabbatai excelled in Talmud but was weak in Halakha. He became a rabid devotee of Lurianic Kabbalah. Shabbetai loved the asceticism and mortification of the body. He married early but, in keeping with Kabbalistic traditions, refused to have intercourse with his wife. She sought a Get which he freely gave. It happened again with his second wife. Shabbatai was likely bipolar, falling into deep depressions and then becoming frenzied, restless, given to ecstatic visions. He felt compelled to eat nonkosher food, to speak the forbidden Tetragrammaton, and commit other holy sins.

Note that during the first half of the 17th century, there was a burst of millenarianism. Christian authors set the apocalyptic year at 1666. Did this burst of millenarianism travel from England to Mordecai and then to Shabbetai, leading him to believe that he was the messiah? Gershom Scholem says no. Scholem relies on the fact that the Sabbatians timetable for redemption placed the major events a year early or a year late.

On the other hand, the Zohar seemed to indicate that the year 1648 was the year of the coming of the messiah. Indeed, despite the fact he was only 22 at the time, Shabbatai revealed himself at Smyrna to a group of followers as the true redeemer, designated by God to overthrow the pagan nations and restore the kingdom of Israel. He proclaimed his mission by pronouncing the Tetragrammaton in public. This act did not gain him a tremendous following but he remained in Smyrna for several years leading the life of a mystic. The college of rabbis was not amused and placed a ban of cherem or excommunication on him. In the early 1650’s he and his followers were banished. He showed up a few years later in Constantinople and found a sidekick named Abraham ha-Yakini who forged an ancient manuscript showing that Abraham predicted Shabbetai’s birth in the year 5386.

Fortified by this document, known as The Great Wisdom of Solomon, Shabbatai moved to Salonica, the heartland of kabbalism. He won numerous adherents, partly by a number of publicity stunts, including a marriage to the Torah. Finally the rabbis of Salonica had enough and banished him as well. Shabbatai moved: to Alexandria, Athens, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Smyrna and finally Cairo. In Cairo lived a very paradoxical fellow named Raphael Joseph Halabi. He was the mint-master and a tax farmer for the Ottoman government and, consequently, enormously rich. To the outside world, he was a Donald Trump, living luxuriously. Privately, Halabi led an ascetic life, fasting and scourging his body. Halabi became a great disciple and promoter of Shabbatai. Armed with disciples and money, Shabattai did what every self-respecting messiah does: he traveled to Jerusalem. Zvi had a great voice and would spend the entire night singing the psalms. He would pray at the graves of the pious. He gave candy to children. But he had to return to Cairo in a hurry. It seems the Ottomans were about to destroy the Jewish community. Zvi became the negotiator. He did what any good negotiator does. He found out the Ottoman’s price. He got the money from Halabi and paid off the Turks. Presto. Shabbatai Zvi became the deliverer of the Jews.

Enter Sarah. During the Chmielnicki massacres in Poland, a six year old Jewish orphan was found by Christians and sent to a convent. She escaped through a miracle ten years later and went to Amsterdam and then Livorno where she was an active and successful prostitute. She got it in her mind that she was going to the bride of the messiah, who was soon to appear. Word of Sarah reached Zvi in Cairo. He sent for her and they were soon married in Halabi’s house. Zvi claimed to have a dream that told him that the messiah had to marry an unchaste woman, like Hosea. Sarah turned out to be a charming and attractive wife who won Zvi followers.

With his harlot wife, Halabi’s money, and more followers than ever, Zvi returned to Palestine, stopping in Gaza. There he met his most important follower, Nathan of Gaza, who joined the messiah train by declaring himself the risen Elijah. In 1665, Nathan announced that the messianic age was going to begin the next year, just as the millenarians had said. Shabbatai spread the word, embellishing it with predictions that Nathan would conquer the world without bloodshed and that he, Shabbatai, would lead the lost ten tribes back to the holy land riding on a lion with a seven-headed dragon in its jaws. The rabbis of Jerusalem were understandably hostile so Shabbatai decided to return to Smyrna which he declared would be the holy city henceforth. On Rosh Hashanah in 1665, Shabbatai jumped the gun and declared himself messiah in the Smyrna synagogue, a declaration that was greeted with cheers and the blowing of the shofar.

Shabbatai became the absolute ruler of the Jewish community of Smyrna, deposing the old chief rabbi. He grew more popular, with Christians as well as Jews. Heinrich Oldenburg wrote to Baruch Spinoza about the revolution taking place involving the return of the Jews. Many prominent rabbis became followers. There was a report of a ship with silk sails manned by Hebrew speaking sailors off Scotland. The Jewish community of Avignon made plans to emigrate en masse to the new Israel. With pogroms abounding, the Jews of Europe were ready to believe in the coming of the messiah.

So, what did Shabbatai stand for? Well, with the coming of the messiah, halakha was no longer required. Fast days became days of feasting and rejoicing. The covenant involved no obligations. Freedom from the rules of kashrut, communal meals, group sex, ecstatic singing, occult reading of the Torah, equality of women, and openness to other religions appear to aspects of Shabbatai’s religion. Now, Zvi was not a systematic thinker, but Nathan of Gaza was. Nathan took the Lurianic doctrine of zimzum, or divine contraction, and added to it. This division of the world into the thoughtful light and the thoughtless light is way too complicated to explore within the confines of our brief 24 hour fast. Yet, Nathan’s doctrine provided the theoretical underpinning to explain Zvi’s apostasy. You see, Zvi is the mystical counterpart of the red heifer. He purifies the unclean but, in the process, becomes unclean himself. As throughout kabbalism, we see a dialectic paradigm. Opposites defining each other, complementing each other, and ultimately becoming the same. Light and darkness; thoughtfulness and thoughtlessness, God and Satan, and eventually good and evil all become one.

In any case, come 1666, Zvi’s world began to crumble. He moved to Constantinople because some fellow prophesized that Zvi would take over the sultan’s crown. The Grand Vizier, of course, had him arrested. Zvi used bribes to buy lenient treatment for his two months in jail before being transferred to the state prison. There, he lived opulently on the gifts from rich adherents. A competing would-be messiah, Nehemiah ha-Kohen, met him in prison, a meeting that ended in mutual recrimination and, perhaps, a Shabbataian plot to murder Nehemiah. Nehemiah escaped to Constantinople where he got an audience Sultan Mehmed IV and told him of Shabbatai’s treasonous plots. The Sultan had Shabbatai transferred to a harsher prison but, in the process, the sultan’s doctor, a former Jew, advised Shabbatai to convert to Islam. On September 16, 1666, Shabbatai appeared before the sultan, threw off his Jewish garb, placed a turban on his head, and announced his embrace of the religion of Mohammed. Mahmed was well pleased and rewarded Shabbatai with the job of doorkeeper. To complete his conversion, Shabbatai was forced to take an additional wife. Shabbatai complied.

Shabbatai’s followers did not fare as well. They were devastated, a condition exacerbated by the taunting of Muslims and Christians. Some of Zvi’s followers attempted to keep the movement alive. Zvi did not disappear however. At times he would revile Judaism. At other times he seemed to embrace it. He told the sultan he was meeting with Jews to bring them to Islam, and he was successful in producing a number of conversions. Gradually, however, the Turks grew tired of Shabbatai’s schemes. He was banished. One day he was found in a village near Constantinople singing psalms in a tent with Jews. The grand vizier banished Shabbatai to a small town in Montenegro where he died on Yom Kippur 1676.

Shabateanism was the largest and most momentous messianic movement in Jewish history since, at least the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 60 C.E. Yes, there are the classic economic and historical reasons for the Shabbatean thunderstorm. But far more important, at least according to Gershom Scholem, is the profound metamorphosis in the Jewish religious world caused by the spiritual renewal centered in Safed, largely around Issac Luria. Kabbalism had become the dominant steam of Judaism. The Lurianic kabbalism blended messianism with mysticism. The sparks of divinity are dispersed, just like the Jews are dispersed in exile. These sparks are held captive by the power of evil. Final redemption will not come through one messianic act. Redemption will come through a long chain of activities that prepare the way. This is the true meaning of tikkun olam: the process by which the shattered elements are restored to harmony. The messiah himself is only the last stage after the Jewish people have worked to restore harmony. Lurianism held that the process of restoration had been nearly completed and redemption was just around the corner. So, even places that were largely free of oppression – Amsterdam, Lugano, Salonika – became hotbeds of Sabbateanism because of the huge influence of Lurianic kabbalism.

So what are we to make of Shabbatai Zvi? Clearly, he is the undisputed world record holder for the title of weirdest Jewish historical figure. But, it is a cop-out to just dismiss him as weird. There have been lots of weird Jews, some of them members of this congregation. What is wild about this case is that a large segment of the worldwide Jewish population became passionate and contributing devotees of this weirdo. What came over our ancestors? Was the oppression so bad? Was classical Judaism so irrelevant and stifling? Sadly, there are many cases in history of collective hysteria, many of them with far more dire consequences than anything Zvi produced. Certainly, we, as Jews, should be embarrassed by the story of Shabbatai Zvi. And, we need to use that embarrassment to be on our guard against being taken in by such outlandishness again.

6. Gematria

I still want to cover a few other kabbalistic concepts before I conclude. One of my favorites is gematria which involves explaining a word or group of words in the Torah by substituting other letters of the alphabet or numbers for them in accordance with a set system. This set system has to do mainly with assigning numerical values to the letters and then doing calculations. Gematria is surely an activity for people with way too much time on their hands. It did not start with the kabbalists. For example, the reason there are 39 categories of work prohibited on the Sabbath is because of the phrase Elleh ha-davarim in Exodus 35:1, i.e. these are the things that God has commanded you to do, with Elleh ha-davarim translated as these are the things. So, devarim indicates two because it is plural. The additional article “ha” makes it three. The numerical equivalent on Elleh is 36. Add the 36 to the 3 and you get 39. Simple, no?

But, if the kabbalists did not invent gematria, they certainly carried it to unprecedented and unmatched heights. The major exponent was Eleazar of Worms. He pointed out that the verse, “I have gone down into the nut garden” in Song of Songs is equivalent to the verse, “This is the depth of the chariot” referring to Elijah’s fiery chariot. One of the principal Shabbatean books is based entirely on the gematria surrounding the phrase Shema Yisrael.

Gematria grew more complicated over time. In addition to the numerical value of a word, some 72 different forms of gematriac analysis developed. You may try them at home and arrive at a new understanding of the role of the divine in human life. Let’s take the number 333, which is 3 X 3 X 37, all of which are truncated triangular numbers, a concept dear to kabbalists and opaque to everyone other than true mathematicians. Still, kabbalists have argued 333 is the value of the word "snow"(שֶׁלֶג). 333 is the value of the words “all the inner chambers” (כָּל חַדְרֵי בָטֶן). 333 is the value of the phrase "To You my heart has spoken" (לְךָ אָמַר לִבִּי). 333 is the value of the phrase "And it was day" (וַיְהִי בֹקֶר). This phrase appears at the end of the account of each day of creation, implying that 333 relates to the power to differentiate between day and night. 333 equals 3 times the value of "mask" (מַסְוֶה), referring to the mask worn by Moses in order to conceal the tremendous light shining from his face and mentioned 3 times in 3 consecutive verses. 333 is the value of "the darkness" (הַחשֶׁךְ). This word appears only 3 times in the Pentateuch, twice in the account of creation and once when Moses recounts the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Thus, "the darkness" actually represents the highest level of revelation of God's word, which cannot be grasped (and therefore is seen as darkness). As its first appearance, this word is the 39th word of the Torah, alluding to the 39 lights of dew that represents the essential highest light of the Torah (which therefore seems like darkness). The 39 lights of dew are the revelation of the Torah with which God will resurrect the dead. This word also rectifies loss of memory, specifically the inability to recall God always. So snow, darkness, light, mask, and day are all closely related. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?

7. Lilith

Enough of gematria. Let’s move to Lilith, Judaism’s central female demon. She is mentioned once in scripture, in Isaiah 34:14, where the prophet describes the hell that God will create in His vengeance if the people do not obey:

They shall name it No Kingdom There, and all its princes shall be nothing.
Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses.
It shall be the haunt of jackals, and abode for ostriches.
Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other.
There too Lilith shall repose and find a place to rest.


Where does this Lilith come from? She was created before Eve. According to the midrash, she was made for Adam from the earth, just like Adam. She irritated God by arguing that she and Adam were created equally and, therefore, she was entitled to equal rights. God said no. She became disgruntled, used the name of God in wrath, and fled to embark on her demonic career. As such, she has become something of a feminist icon.

Lilith combines two demonic archetypes: the seducer of men and the strangler of children. She is the evil counterpart of the Shekinah, the feminine Godhead. She is married to the devil Samael. One thing that really, really bothered kabbalists was maturbation, onanism, and particularly nocturnal emissions, all forms of spilling one’s seed. In many stories, Lilith comes to righteous men at night and, though her evil powers, forces them to ejaculate. This seed is used to create demons who plague their father. Indeed, the custom of ten men circling a coffin seven times while chanting psalms is to keep the demons from stealing the soul of the deceased. Listen to this 1717 document:

If a man’s seed escapes him, it gives rise, with the help of a female demon and Lilith, to evil spirits, which however die when the time comes. When a man dies and his children begin to weep and lament, these evil spirits come too, wishing, along with the other children, to have their part in the deceased as their father; they tug and pluck at him, so that he feels the pain, and God Himself, when He sees this noxious offspring by the corpse, is reminded of the dead man’s sins. Jews in their lifetime sternly ordered their children not to make the slightest plaint or weep until the dead body in the cemetery had been purified by washing, cleansing, and the cutting of the finger and toe nails, because these unclean spirits are thought to have no further part in the body, once it is cleansed.

Lilith is closely associated with the Queen of Sheba, based on the myth that Sheba was a jinn, half human and half demon. One kabbalistic author asserted that the riddles Sheba posed to Solomon are a repetition of the words Lilith used to seduce Adam.

There exists a long history of amulets to protect childbearing mothers and infants from Lilith. The amulet contains the names of three angels who prevail over Lilith. Some amulets contain the following story: the prophet Elijah met Lilith on her way to the house of a woman in childbirth to give her the sleep of death, to take her son and drink his blood, to suck the marrow of his bones and to eat his flesh. Elijah excommunicated her whereupon Lilith vowed not to harm women in childbirth whenever she saw or heard her name.

8. Hasidism

Finally, I want to discuss the relationship of Hasidism to kabbalism. Following the demise of Shabbatai Zvi in 1676, a sharp split took place in the Jewish community. Polish Jewry continued to embrace kabbalism, while Lithuanian Jewry was under the sway of orthodox, traditional rabbis. The Cossack Uprising and the subsequent Turkish invasion left Lithuania depopulated. Polish Jews filled the void and, with them, came a rise in mysticism. At the same time, rabbinism, which in Poland had become transformed into a system of religious formalism, no longer provided a satisfactory religious experience to many Jews. Although traditional Judaism had adopted some features of kabbalism, it adapted them to fit its own system: it added to its own ritualism. The asceticism of those who saw the essence of earthly existence only in fasting, in penance, and in spiritual sadness was suitable for hermits, but did not work for most Jews.

Into this situation was born Israel ben Eliezar, the Bal Shem Tov. Born in 1698, his fame as a healer spread not only among the Jews, but also among the non-Jewish peasants and the Polish nobles. Posthumous books about the Bal Shem Tov describe his spiritual powers and knowledge, miracle working, and ability to predict the future. In turn, these notions were passed on to his saintly students and successors, and shaped the Hasidic doctrine of the tzaddik or rebbe, a righteous leader who channels Divine sustenance to his followers. The particular Hasidic emphasis on this concept of the tzaddik became one of the ideas that made Hasidism unique. To this day, Hasidic communities are organized around a Rebbe who combines the role of teacher of Judaism with a charismatic spiritual example.

The teachings of the Baal Shem Tov offered a folk spiritual revival, while also giving the scholarly elite a new depth and approach to mysticism. Hasidism gave a ready response to the burning desire of the common people; in the simple, stimulating, and comforting faith it awakened in them. The scholars attracted to Hasidism also sought to learn selfless humility and simple sincerity from the common folk. In contrast to other sectarian teaching, early Hasidism aimed not at dogmatic or ritual reform, but at a deeper psychological one. It aimed to change not the belief, but the believer. By means of psychological suggestion, it created a new type of religious man, a type that placed emotion above reason and rites, and religious exaltation above knowledge. Traditional devotion to Jewish study and scholarship was not replaced, but was spiritualized as a means to cleave to God. The great activity of Jewish study could, in contrast, offer the scholar spiritual peril, if it contributed to their sense of ego, and therefore a barrier with God's presence.

So, why do Hasidim wear clothes that would have been fashionable in Poland in 1720? That’s easy: because their fathers did. When the Israelites were slaves in Egypt they didn't change their mode of dress and become exactly like their captors. It is thought that this factor merited them being saved in the Exodus. So the Hassidim believe that if they wear the same clothes as centuries ago, it will protect them against assimilation.

9. Conclusions

Let me try to sum this up. What should we make of Kabbalism? Let me say what it is not. It is not traditional Judaism. In many, many ways it is incompatible with both traditional rabbinic Judaism and with modern, rational Judaism. It is magical, folklorish, polytheistic or, at least, di-theistic, and idol-worshipping. It is also not some new age schtick. It was serious, intense, not meant to be dabbled at. At the same time, it has had a profound influence on modern Jews. We hang mezuzahs. We do not name babies after living people. We cover mirrors when we sit shiva. We avoid writing an “o” in the word God.

Tradition has it that no one should study Kabbalah unless they are over 40, happily married, know the Torah backwards and forward, and do not masturbate. That view is wrong. We, as Jews should be literate in Kabbalah to know where we came from, to know who we are. Kabbalah may not provide for you answers to fundamental questions about who we are and the purpose of our lives. It certainly does not address those questions for me. But, Kabbalah is a critical link in the evolution of Judaism. To teach, as our religious schools often do, that modern Judaism is the lineal descendant of Hillel and Maimonides is just wrong. To understand where we are today, we need to know how we got there. Kabbalah was a huge block in the foundation of modern Judaism.

Letter on Health Care to Senator Lieberman

September 24, 2009


Senator Joseph Lieberman
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator:

Once again I write you to ask you to support universal and affordable health care. It is a moral imperative to provide health care to all our citizens. Indeed, Maimonides ranked health care first on his list of the ten most important communal services that a city had to offer to its residents (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De'ot IV: 23).

Although a single government-run system would be simpler and probably cheaper, I think we can agree that switching from the current employer-based, private insurance provided system would be highly disruptive. Therefore, I think we can agree that reforming the current system to reduce costs, ensure access, and mandate participation is the best way to reform our terribly broken health care system.

The Obama Administration has proposed the creation of an Exchange in which private insurance carriers can offer coverage to the 45 million Americans without coverage. To set a benchmark and ensure that such coverage is reasonably priced, the Administration, the House bills, and the HEAL bill all create a public insurance company, initially funded with governmental money, but then forced to run on a break-even basis. This is the so-called public option. Frankly, this public option is essential to make the system function. Without the public option, we could well end up with mandated coverage that is priced at an unaffordable level. Stated otherwise, substantially expanding coverage is not viable without the public option. And, substantially expanding coverage is the moral imperative of this legislation.

Reforming health care has numerous facets. We need to prevent insurance companies from excluding individuals from coverage or increasing premiums for pre-existing conditions. We need to stop insurance companies from unilaterally changing or terminating coverage when an individual gets sick. We need to compensate doctors based on a comprehensive system of care, not based on number of tests ordered. We need to lift the burden of uncompensated care off our hospitals. We need to focus on wellness and prevention not on terminal care. And, we need to check the runaway inflation in the Medicare program. If you work constructively with your colleagues on the Finance Committee, these goals can be achieved.

Senator, I ask your support of universal, affordable health care.

Sincerely yours,


Andrew Feinstein

Senator Lieberman on Health Care Reform

In August 1994 I published an Op-Ed piece in the Hartford Courant attacking Senator Joseph Lieberman for having a disingenuous position on Clinton's Health Care Reform Proposal. My comments then continue to have a certain relevance today.

Reflections on 9/11

Reflections on September 11

I remain puzzled by the conventional view that 9/11 was the most catastrophic event to face America since the Civil War. On what scale?

Let’s put the hijackings in perspective. The triple hijackings and flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon left 2,974 confirmed dead (with another 24 missing), including the 19 hijackers. In September 2001, 3,303 Americans died needlessly in traffic fatalities. If the horrendous nature of 9/11 was due to the mass deaths, why is there not a national cry for a 50 mph speed limit or safer cars or mandatory alcohol interlock ignitions?

The attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and did some significant damage to the Pentagon. Yet, on April 19, 1995, a couple of right-wing nut cases destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. People were upset by the Oklahoma City bombing but it did not even register on the same scale as the events of 9/11.

The attacks of 9/11 were a successful assault of Americans on American territory. And, for a few months after 9/11, people lived in fear of foreign attack. But the fact remains that no American has been killed on American soil by a foreign terrorist since 9/11 and, except for the World Trade Center Bombing of February 26, 1993 which killed 6, no American had been killed on American soil by a foreign terrorist prior to 9/11. Yet, many Americans have been killed by domestic terrorists, whack-jobs, criminals, spouses, and creditors before and since 9/11. Why are we so traumatized by foreign terrorist murder and so immune to domestic terrorist murder, such as the murder of Dr. George Tiller on June 1?

The conclusion I draw is that a cadre of right-wing politicians and venal economic interests carefully inflated the shock of 9/11 into a national obsession to fuel the drive to enact their own agenda. We all know what that agenda included: substantial increases in funding for the military, police, and prisons at the expense of funding for education, housing and health care. It included the passage of the Patriot Act to curtail our liberties. And, it set the tone for crushing dissent through freely made and never challenged claims of national security.

My concern is not to bemoan the damage to American society and the economy inflicted in the name of 9/11. My concern is that sane, intelligent people feed into this destructive force by making the attacks of 9/11 into something more than they were. By inflating the importance of 9/11 in American history, by repeating the phrase “horrendous”, by obsessing about today’s anniversary, we are doing the right-wing’s job for them. We are making 9/11 into the watershed event that it never should have been.

Indeed, not only are we handing victory to the right-wing, we are handing victory to Al-Queda and to all those Muslims who hate us. The damage of 9/11 to the buildings and to the 2,974 who lost their lives was minor compared to the damage of 9/11 to American as a civil society. And that latter damage was not done by Al-Queda or any foreign terrorist. It was done by us.

Medical Malpractice

Medical Malpractice

The issue of malpractice reform has surfaced in the health care debate. As a trial lawyer, I have a certain amount of experience with malpractice actions. Unlike my colleagues in the bar, however, I think the current system is perverse and inappropriate.

When a prospective client comes in and tells me a story of medical neglect or about a bad outcome, the first question I have is, “Do you have injuries of over $250,000?” If not, it really does not matter how egregious the malpractice was. The cost of hiring experts and litigating to the nth degree is so high that no lawyer can take a malpractice suit unless damages are over $250,000. So, we need to reform malpractice to create a viable remedy for serious injuries that do not reach the quarter of a million dollar threshold.

Further, the system has become so highly charged that there are no quick settlements of medical malpractice actions. Part of this is, of course, the fragile egos of doctors who can never apologize or admit a mistake. Part of this is the strategic decision of insurance companies to fight every case to the death to deter plaintiffs from coming forward. So, enormous churning takes place. Motion after motion is filed. Depositions go on interminably.

And, the malpractice system interferes with my ability to get prompt health care. I asked my doctor why he will not answer email or telephone questions. Part of it is that he will not get reimbursed for this time for email or telephone. But, he explained, it is not the uncompensated time that prevents him from answering. It is the fact that he is totally exposed to malpractice claims for those answers. If he were compensated for the service, he might decide that answering calls and emails would make sense. The result is clear. I had a sore back and wanted to see a physical therapist. I called my doctor’s office. I was told I had to come in so he could rule out other causes. I decided it was not worth my time and paid the PT out of pocket.

So what is the solution? There are two goals to the medical malpractice system: compensating victims of some one else’s negligence and punishing health care providers whose actions fall below the standard of care. Malpractice is not a no-fault insurance scheme. Medical procedures carry risks and a horrible outcome can result from no negligence whatsoever. In that case, the patient bears all the burden.

The current system overcompensates a few victims, undercompensates most, and provides no compensation whatsoever for the victim whose injuries do not total $250,000. So, on the one hand, we need a low-cost administrative scheme, broadly like workers’ compensation, to compensate victims of medical malpractice. This means a table of damages. Critically, the table of damages needs to provide some meaningful recovery for pain and suffering. My thought is that we establish a maximum dollar amount for a day of the most excruciating pain. We then scale that back based on the level of pain actually suffered and multiply by the number of days of that suffering. Obviously, all medical costs resultant from the malpractice would be covered on a dollar for dollar basis. The patient would be awarded the costs of future medical treatment, if amply demonstrated. The patient would also receive an award for permanent disability. Lawyers for the victims would also be paid out of the system. All costs of this system would be paid by the medical providers’ insurance.

The other goal of the system is what worries me the most. Under the current system, many incompetent medical providers skate through, fending off claims and paying their premiums. Hospitals suffer no sanction for failing to enforce infection precautions resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths every year. And, doctors routinely make money by ordering unnecessary tests and blame the malpractice system for their own greed and dishonesty. The replacement malpractice system needs to have three features. First, medical providers who face claims and who have to pay need to have their insurance premiums accurately reflect this. The risk cannot be spread too broadly. The weak, the incompetent, the lazy must face the consequences. Perhaps some will decide that the practice of medicine is too expensive for them and transfer to a field for which they are competent. Second, the compensation system must be closely linked to the licensing boards. When a medical provider reaches a certain threshold of claims, the provider should face a hearing by the licensing board to determine whether the license should be suspended or the provider placed on probation. Third, the entire system must be wide-open transparent. Any medical consumer in the area ought to be able to type in the name of a doctor or a hospital or a radiology service and see how many claims have been brought against them and what the outcome of those claims have been.

Okay, I know this proposal will be greeted with wrath by both my fellow trial lawyers and by the medical profession. Still, I think it is worth saying that the charges against the medical malpractice system by the medical profession are, for the most part accurate. The solution they propose will not, however, correct the problem and will just serve to further enrich them.

Return to Woodstock
August 15, 2009

What a weird trip. Bethel Woods, the site of the Woodstock festival, is Woodstock as re-envisioned and made perverse by Disney. It is a fascist state where everyone is searched, there are thousands of security guards, every inch is fenced off (especially the ancestral hillside where we lay in the mud), and no smoking. I can see banning tobacco but banning all smoking is anti-Woodstock Nation.
The crowd was some aged hippies but mainly suburban parents and grandparents donning peace symbols and tie-died shirts made by slave labor in state owned factories in China. Virtually no pot was detectable but there was more than ample wine and beer.... The concert itself was great: Country Joe McDonald (who led the Fish cheer and a rousing sing-along of the I Feel Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag),
Big Brother and the Holding Company with an excellent Janis Joplin substitute, Jefferson Starship with an equally good Grace Slick, Ten Years After (who really got cooking), Canned Heat, Mountain (Les got married on stage) and Levon Helm Band, which did a traditional performance, not a nostalgia show. Paul Kanter looked and sounded uglier than before. Leslie West looked like my crazy relative from Brooklyn.
Levon Helm looked frail and could not use his voice. I had few distinct memories of Woodstock before I arrived. But seeing the ground, I remember distinctly where I lay in the mud, where we camped, working on building the stage, the horrible bathroom and food situation.
What was depressing to recall was how we thought that we could change things, how 400,000 kids could say no to an immoral war and a repressive government, how, we thought, the man's technology could not fuck with the power of the people. The two finger peace signs, the tie-die, and group sing of Volunteers was all there. But Woodstock Nation proved the Comet Kohoutek of social/political movements. But, as a friend pointed out, forget the politics; the music prevailed.
I was in the car recently with my 22 year old daughter who was loudly singing “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”. I pointed out that the song was 37 years old. If I listened to 37 year old songs at her age, I would have been listening to the Hits of 1935 (“I’m in the Mood for Love”, “Isle of Capri”, “Lullaby of Browadway”.)

Golem

D’var Torah

July 10, 2009

Andrew A. Feinstein

The Golem

First, a little shameless self-promotion. Every Yom Kippur I teach a class here after the morning service. This year’s topic is Kabbalah. Tonight’s sermon is merely a forespice, which is Yiddish for appetizer. On Yom Kippur, I will survey Kabbalah more broadly and cover topics such as emanations, the Zohar, Shabbetai Zvi, Gematria, Lilith, and the Dybbuk. I promise you, my Yom Kippur class will not be Madonna’s Kabbalah. Tonight I will focus on that Kabbalistic favorite: the Golem.

Before I discuss the Golem, let me take a moment to comment generally on the Kabbalah, or, more precisely, our relationship to the Kabbalah. Kabbalah is the mystical, magical, spiritual, folklore-ish, fantasy-based, popular, insular, primitive, and highly sexual form of Judaism that developed in Spain and Eastern Europe in the late middle ages. In many ways, Kabbalah is the antithesis of modern, American Reform Judaism, with its focus on rationality, individual responsibility, and involvement in the world. Yet, Kabbalah has bequeathed us a rich legacy of symbols, ideas, and mythology that enrich us as Jews. I see Kabbalah like youthful misbehavior: we Jews are embarrassed by what we did, but we learned a lot from it and are kind of glad we did it.

Chapter 2 of Genesis contains the second story of man’s creation, as follows:

4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;

6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, living human beings are created with three elements: water, dust, and breath. Sounds simple enough. Simple enough to try at home.

It is the 1580’s in Prague. Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel wants to serve and protect his community. Using his detailed knowledge of the Kabbalah, understanding how to pronounce the sacred name of God, Rabbi Loew forms a creature from the earth. He writes Emet or Truth on the creature’s forehead. It comes to life and serves as a tireless manual laborer, easing the lives of the Prague Jews. Day by day the creature, known as a Golem, grows and becomes stronger, until he becomes a threat to the community. Rabbi Judah erases the Aleph from the beginning on Emet. The word becomes Met, or Dead. The Golem collapses into a lifeless pile of dirt.

Golem legends developed very early in Judaism. Indeed, verse 16 of Psalm 139, appears to refer to the Golem when it says, “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” The Talmud refers to Adam as a Golem, that is, a body without a soul, for the first 12 hours of his existence. And, of course, Islamic and Christian alchemists and Christian Gnostics, like Paracelsus, also studied human creation of humans. Paracelsus, Goethe, and Carl Jung were all obsessed with the homunculus. Mary Shelley in Frankenstein, E.T.A. Hoffman in Der Sandmann, written into Tales of Hoffman by Jacques Offenbach, and modern ethicists in their debate over cloning all are fascinated by the same magical trick.

Golem myths are part of the same genus but are of their own distinctly Jewish species. Let’s survey some of those uniquely Jewish elements. A Golem is a man created by magical art. By the Tenth Century of the Common Era, a book, known as the Sefer Yezirah, or Book of Creation, was well-known and influential in Jewish scholarly circles, although the evidence is strong that the Book of Creation was written as early as the Third Century. This book is the root of all of Kabbalah, laying out the sefirot of 32 secret paths of wisdom. These 32 paths, plus the 22 elemental letters of the Hebrew alphabet, are the foundation of creation. Learn these elements, put them in the right order, study, study, study, and you can create a Golem. In other words, secret knowledge is essential to create life. Like Christian and Muslim Gnostics, Jewish mystics believed that, by gaining secret knowledge, they could become divine. Note that this notion runs directly counter to the lesson of Leviticus 10, where Aaron’s sons are destroyed for becoming too God-like.

The most closely guarded and most sought-after of secret knowledge has to do with the Tetragrammaton Yud Hay Vav Hay. These four letters form the secret name of God. Is it Yahweh or Jehovah or Adonai? Do you read the letters backwards as Hu Hi or He/She? If we knew how to pronounce these letters, the mystics claimed, we would have the power of God. And, the power of God is, as we know from Genesis 1, the power to create life. The Kabbalists did not stop with the Tetragrammaton. They believed the entire Torah was the name of God. The spaces and the vowels were just one way of reading the scroll. Divide the letters differently, use different vowels, and you have another true story of human creation. And why would the Torah begin with a Bet, not an Aleph? An Aleph has no sound of its own; it takes its sound from the vowels and the surrounding letters. What is the Aleph but a breath of air? Is it not the breath of God that created Adam in Genesis 2?

If you study for all your life, have reached the age of 40, are male, are happily married, know the Torah backwards and forwards, quite literally, do not masturbate, have no wet dreams, and can recite the secret incantation, you can create a Golem. If the Golem gets out of hand, you can recite the secret incantation backwards and the Golem disappears.

So, one distinctly Jewish element of the Golem myth is study. The power to create comes from study. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice. How do you create a Golem? Study, study, study.

Another related distinctly Jewish element is positing Truth and Death as opposites. Listen to the tale told by students of Rabbi Judah the Pious of Speyer who died in 1217 in Regensburg:

Ben Sira wished to study the Sefer Yetsirah. Then a heavenly voice went forth: You cannot make him [the Golem] alone. He went to his father Jeremiah. They busied themselves with it, and at the end of three years a man was created to them, on whose forehead stood Emet, as on Adam’s forehead. Then the man they had made said to them: God alone created Adam, and when he wished to let Adam die, he erased the aleph from Emet and he remained Met, dead. That is what you should do with me and not create another man, lest the word succumb to idolatry as in the days of Enosh. The created man said to them: Reverse the combination of letters and erase the aleph of the word Emet from my forehead – and immediately he fell into dust.

Again, note the missing Aleph. No breath of God; no life. Now obviously this Emet/Met routine is nothing but a silly word game, like reversing God to dog. (Oh, if we only revered God in the way we worship our pets what a righteous community we would be.) Yet, even dismissing the cute word game, there is the underlying notion that humans need truth to live; that without truth there is no life. Within all the magic and voodoo of Kabbalah, there lies an ethical core. The message here is that there is no life of lies. Bernie Madoff never lived.

Third, a Golem is not a human being. Moses Cordovero said that a man has the power to give hiyyut, or vitality, but not nefesh, life, ru’ah, spirit, or neshamah, soul. Indeed, in many stories, the Golem lacks the power to speak. The original Golem creator, the Talmudic Rava was unable to confer speech. Eleazar of Worms faced the same limitation. Interestingly, a 12^th Century retelling of the Talmudic story of Rava says that a man without sin could confer language, but not a man who has sinned. The idea is that the creator transmits his soul to the creature. The soul of life comes from purity. Impurity is the dividing line between the righteous and God. As in Leviticus 10, humans cannot be God. Their attempts to do so will lead to destruction.

Eleazar of Worms goes further and says that the Golem is dead because his creator cannot give him knowledge of God or speech. Speech was the highest of human faculties to the Kabbalists and the mother of reason and revelation. Clearly, the Kabbalists had never heard Sarah Palin speak. A Spanish Kabbalist had a slightly different view, saying:

When the rabbis say: a childless man is like a dead man, this means: like a golem without form. Consequently pictures that are painted on a wall are of this nature, for although they have the form of a man, they are called only tselem, image and form. When Rava created a man, he made a figure in the form of a man by virtue of the combination of letters, but he could not give him demuth, the real likeness of a man. For it is possible for a man, with the help of mighty forces, to make a man who speaks, but not one who can procreate or has reason. For this is beyond the power of any created being and rests with God alone.

So, the Golem cannot have reason and cannot reproduce. Note that many of the genetically modified crops and cloned animals are unable to reproduce. So, the Golem does not really live, but he does not really die either. The Golem just returns to its original element.

In the modern world, we all risk becoming Golems. Remember Kafka’s The Penal Colony where the death sentence is written on the prisoner’s forehead. Kafka argued that mechanized violence, whether in his Penal Colony or on the plains of Europe, was merely the logical extension of a bureaucratic model of writing that elevates the abstract over the concrete, that confuses the symbol for the thing symbolized, that makes the written word the idol, the modern Golden Calf. As Milan Kundera wrote, “In the Kafkan world, the file takes on the role of the Platonic idea. It represents true reality, whereas our physical existence is only a shadow cast on the screen of illusions.” Like Golems, we risk becoming our social security numbers or our ATM cards. We are dehumanized by being labeled and categorized. And, we dehumanize others by referring to them as a label. Oh, he is a Muslim. She has cancer. We seem all too capable of doing the converse of what Rabbi Loew did. Instead of creating a Golem from dirt, we create Golems from human beings.

Finally, a distinctively Jewish element in the Golem myths is the notion that all power, all scientific progress, all human creation is both good and bad. Only God can create and say, “It is Good,” as He does in Genesis 1. As Martin Buber wrote,

Man is no longer able to master the world which he himself brought about: it is becoming stronger than he is, it is winning free of him, it confronts him in an almost elemental independence, and he no longer knows the word which could subdue and render harmless the golem he created. … Man faced the terrible fact that he was the father of demons whose master he could not become.

And, that is the message of the Golem. The Golem can protect our community or serve our needs, but only if we control our creation. Is not the computer a modern Golem? It has vitality, but no soul. It can help us, but it can also master us. Our job is not to avoid creation. It is not to put an end to science. Instead, our job is to ensure that we remain the masters of our creation.

The Golem is a powerful symbol. To become initiated in some Kabbalistic sects, one had to wear pure deerskin parchment inscribed with the secret names of God, fast for seven days, and then call out the secret name of God over the waters, starting all over again if the waters looked green. We don’t have to become zealots and fanatics to distill some valuable lessons from the Golem, lessons like knowledge brings power, that honesty is an essential element of being alive, that we need to resist all efforts to dehumanize us or any other human on earth, and that we need to control our creations.

Amen.