Failed States, Failed Lives

There was a crisis in the camp of Israel. Korach, a wealthy and popular leader, was challenging Moses and Aaron. Why, argued Korach, should Aaron be the high priest? Is this a classic case of nepotism? Does he deserve the job, or is it because he is Moses's brother? The entire congregation is holy, says Korach, so we should share the wealth.

In order to put these sentiments to rest, God commands Moses to gather the wooden staffs of all of the princes of the tribes. Together with Aaron's staff, these will be placed in the Tabernacle overnight. In the morning, people will see whom God chooses to be His High Priest. When they come back the next morning, Aaron's staff has bloomed. More specifically, it has blossomed with a flower, then has sent forth a shoot, and finally has grown almonds. These three things are very significant.

The famous saying of Hillel goes, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, then when?" These three rhetorical questions are addressed, and may be inspired by, the staff of Aaron. Let me explain.

The flower that blossomed represents the unique gifts of each individual. This is the first part of Hillel's saying, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" We have a primary responsibility to develop our own talents and gifts. If we don't sharpen our own saw, it will never be sharpened.

The shoot that came out implies an outward focus. Indeed, one of the garments of the High Priest was called the "Tzitz," the same word used for shoot in this story. On this garment, which the priest wore on his forehead, was written in the Divine Name. It was intended for all to see and draw inspiration from. It exemplifies the required outward focus of the high priest. Thus, says Hillel, "And if I am for myself alone, what am I?"

The third element of the staff of Aaron was the blossoming of the almonds. Almonds are the quickest of the fruits. The Hebrew word for almond, "Shaked," is also used to mean alacrity and enthusiasm. It implies moving fast, with gusto. Hence, the third element in Hillel's saying matches is perfectly: "And if not now, then when?"

Thus, the ideal man and woman will nurture their gifts and talents, gain education and work to refine their character. This is all done with a goal of service to humanity, not selfish accomplishment. Finally, this person senses the urgency of the mission and does not delay even for a moment. The world needs you now, not when you think you're good and ready.

This got me to thinking, why do we need to be focused outward? If I said at a table and feed the person next to me, and they feed the person next to them, and so on, we will certainly all eat a meal. But why must it be done that way? Why can't we just feed ourselves and have the same result? In other words, why not take care of ourselves and make that our focus, so that nobody else needs to take care of us? We can even make allowance for the extreme circumstances when someone does need another to take care of them.

Another teaching of the sages of the Mishna evaluates the way people relate to wealth and property. "One who says ' What is yours is yours, and what his mind is mine,' is an average person. Some sages teach that this is the attribute of Sodom." That is quite an argument! We go from average to the extreme evil of Sodom! What does this mean?

I don't believe one need say there is an argument here. One sages simply stressing statistics, that most people take the approach of "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours." The other sage counters that this is a very bad approach, it is the approach of Sodom. The focus on me, while in the short term it may not cause major problems, in the long term can devolve into fascism and unspeakable cruelty. The difference between the Hillel approach and the Sodom approach is the difference of connection versus division.

Modern Western countries are focused on the rights of their citizens. People speak up, demonstrate, become active politically and vote based on who is going to protect their rights better. I believe this is a very bad thing. President Kennedy decried this in his famous saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Nowadays this has been flipped on its head.

Judaism is not a religion of rights, it is a system of responsibilities. It teaches us not that the poor have a right to bread, but rather that the rich have a responsibility to give bread to the poor. It is a subtle difference, but it is a world of difference.

The origin of societies was based upon what is called the "Social contract." The idea was that we band together for the common good, and to prevent any individuals from exploiting others. We agreed to behave nicely to others so that they do not kill us. There is no underlying concept of unity here, only a practical arrangement to prevent anarchy. The obvious flaw of the social contract is in the situation when one group becomes stronger than another, and no longer needs the social contract.

A poignant historical example of this is the Islamic treatment of treaties. Mohamed made a treaty for 10 years of peace with the tribe of Qureish in Mecca. As soon as he was strong enough, only two years into that treaty, he returned and massacred them all. So much for the lasting value of the social contract. This is exactly what we see happening in the Middle East today.

In America today, we are seeing worrying signs of societal disintegration. At the same time, there is a very troubling political hostility in the air. I believe this is a direct result of the emphasis of rights over responsibilities. That emphasis, although more refined, is still part of the social contract approach. Everybody is shouting "give me my right to do whatever the heck I want and the rest of you can do whatever the heck you want." The emphasis on me contains within it the seeds of division, and we see this happening before our very eyes.

God wants man to be focused outward. God wants man to understand that his purpose in life is to fulfill his responsibility towards humanity. God wants man to be dedicated to the fixing of the world. Certainly people deserve rights, but the way they must get those rights is through others fulfilling their responsibility to protect them. I am afraid that in the Western world, the nations have no goal other than to keep things quiet. There is no unifying vision that casts responsibility on every member of society. If there would be, things would be quite different.

I believe that the Western world needs to find a new mission, and that mission is an urgent one. It is to save the innocent victims of the barbarism rocking the Middle East. It is to teach the world the meaning of "love thy neighbor," and to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the "other."

This is the message of Aaron's staff. The essence of life is to use all of the wonderful gifts that God gave each of us to reach out and improve the world. The world needs constant improvement, and cannot wait. Someone who is truly dedicated to this task cannot sit idly by, even if they think they are not ready.