Commentary on our Siddur
We live in a time in which many people bemoan the rise of partisanship in society, politics and the media. In fact, practically the only thing we can all agree about is that we are so torn apart. Opposing camps argue about identifying and defining problems. Is racism a problem in the US? Do humans contribute to climate change? Are the police heroes or villains? Divisiveness prevails, whether it is between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, right and left, Israel and its enemies, the West and the East, moderates and extremists, etc., etc. These divisions are, themselves, subject to contention. We know all too well how we tear ourselves apart arguing whether someone is “really” pro-Israel or is “actually” anti-Israel, or whether criticism of Israel masks another, more insidious agenda of anti-Semitism. We cannot even agree about these dyads; yet they constantly serve us as organizing terms of our polemics. Of course each side accuses the other of excessive partisanship and bad faith, while claiming the moral and intellectual high ground for themselves. And we struggle with the very hope that these issues can be discussed in a useful manner. Each side accuses the other of censorship and intimidation, manipulation of the media or the system, as the levels of outrage rise ever higher. A vicious cycle results in which comprehensive considerations of issues become ever more impossible to entertain.
As we move, in this series of essays, into exploration of the next section of our morning prayers, Recitation of the Sh’ma and its Blessings – Q’ri’at Sh’ma U-Virkhoteha – we can discern that the first part of this section recognizes this difficult issue. This section is focused on leading the worshipper towards, through and past a meaningful recitation of the Sh’ma. To work towards this recitation the siddur (- prayerbook) sets forth two blessings. The first one serves as an introduction for the entire section and sets the tone for it.
It begins with these words: “You abound in blessings, Eternal One, our Almighty God, Maker of light and Creator of darkness, Peacemaker and Creator of everything.” This is only the beginning of the blessing, which keeps on going for a number of paragraphs. But, again, in coming first it sets the tone for what follows. The blessing embraces the opposites of light and dark, both deriving equally from God. These opposites, declares our blessing, have a common source. That common source – God, is to be praised for being the source of these two polarities. Instead of being enlisted by only one of the sides, God is lauded for being the common grounding from which each side gets its very being.
The anti-polarizing role of God is brought out explicitly in the next phrase of the blessing. God is reverently named “Oseh Shalom – Peacemaker.” This name is familiar to us from other prayers, as well, most notably from the conclusion of the Kaddish prayer. In that prayer we say that God has succeeded in making peace in the heavens above. But now we pray that God make peace for us, here, below. We acknowledge that we have not yet mastered the peacemaking quality of God, although we have been created in God’s very Image, so we turn to God in hope and yarning.
The concluding phrase of the blessing sharpens the point. God is names “Creator of everything,” or, better, “Creator of all.” The word “everything” connotes things rather than people. The word “all” includes all there is, things and people, all people. The word “all” is an inclusive a word as can be imagined. Nothing is excluded from the “all.” Nothing.
This means that there is a deep connection to God in everything and everyone, including that which we despise and oppose, including ideas and people we reject and combat. This point is made even stronger when we learn that the language of this blessing was carefully edited. The names of God in this blessing are taken from a verse in Isaiah in which God offers these names in self-description: “Maker of light and Creator of darkness, Peacemaker and Creator of Evil, I am the Eternal, Maker of all these.” (Isaiah 45:7) By comparing the verse with the blessing that echoes the verse, we notice that a small change has been made in the blessing. God is not named “Creator of evil” in contrast to “Peacemaker.” Instead the contrast is made between “Peacemaker” and “Creator of all.”
The Talmud discusses this editorial choice made by the Rabbis. It explains that the substitution is “a nicer turn of phrase.” This is commonly taken to mean that the Rabbis wanted to soften the stark message of Isaiah. So they eliminated the harsh word, “evil.” But this is not the whole story. The Talmud continues with an objection. If the rabbinic authors of the blessing wished to formulate a smoother blessing, why did they include the reference to darkness? The answer given is that it is important in incorporate a recognition of darkness even in times of light, as it is important to include a consciousness of light even when darkness reigns. (BTBerakhot 11b)
Thus, the message is not an obfuscation of contrasts, but a re-emphasis of the connectedness of contrasts. If we are to prepare ourselves to accept that God is One, the proclamation of the Sh’ma, then we must teach ourselves to embrace the full dimensions of God’s Oneness. God is not “one of us” but “The One.” God is “Creator of all.”
At a time when religious fervor is horrifyingly used for sectarian violence and brutal murder of supposed opponents, this blessing seeks to teach us a more difficult truth. We cannot allow ourselves the lazy self-righteousness of demonizing everyone we disagree with. This does not mean that everything is equally good and that there is no evil. The editors of our prayerbook knew this at least as well as we do. But it means that we are meant to strive to identify the kernel of divinity that must reside within the enemy camp, even as we strive against that camp. The all-encompassing essence of God that is within us all means that we have within ourselves the same capacities for good and evil as do our opponents.
This understanding should change the way we argue with each other. Take a recent example. The New York City Police Department has been at the center of controversy because of death of Eric Garner, a man who may have been guilty of a petty crime, but who was killed by police as they tried to arrest him. The disproportion between the offense he committed and the use of force against him seemed outrageous to many observers, especially those in the African-American community. The police felt besieged, accused of racism and brutality. Many police officers, led by their union representative, perceived the mayor to be siding with their critics. They declared that his stance was unforgiveable. Matters worsened when two police officers were murdered while simply sitting in their patrol car. Some police accused the mayor of sharing blame for those murders. The mayor, in their view, had moved from being disrespectful of cops to being a cop-killer!
This has been a casebook example of futile polarization. It seems impossible for either side to deal with these tragedies constructively. That would mean that each would have to accept some value in the perceptions of the other side. Yes, it must be gratefully and humbly acknowledged that the police do a heroic job and continuously risk their lives to protect society. But, yes, it also must be honestly and compassionately admitted, such pressure can produce a hardening of the heart and a quick-trigger response to any perceived or misperceived danger. If both of these truths could be accepted we might actually be ready to tackle the hard questions that are posed by crime and law enforcement.
This exercise can be done with any issue that divides us. We can ask ourselves: What criticisms do my opponents make against my side? What is the core of truth from which that criticism derives, however misconstrued or misapplied? What legitimate concerns lie at the basis for the fears, beliefs or misguided policies or actions that are promoted by the other side? How can they be dealt with constructively? Instead we waste our energies attacking each other and ignoring the attacks hurled at us. Instead of doing the hard work of making the world a better place, we exhaust our powers on diminishing each other and thereby diminishing ourselves and our Creator.
The first blessing of this section of prayers seeks to remind us that we can do better. It seeks to remind of this every morning.
—
image: “Silence” © Patrik Theander altered and used with permission via Creative Commons License 2
- Toby Stein: In Memoriam - Thu, Feb 8, 2024
- Faithfulness and Hope: Parashat Sh’lach - Thu, Jun 23, 2022
- Past Their Prime: Parashat B’ha`a lot’kha - Thu, Jun 16, 2022