Monday, April 24, 2017

Understanding Circumcision - Sources and Contemporary Practice

This week's topic is close to my heart. Most of the links embedded in here are to my expansion of these subjects in my mohel website

Tazria-Metzora 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

Everyone knows that the Bris Milah, the “Covenant of Circumcision” dates back to the covenant forged between God and Abraham, covering chapter 17 of Bereshit.

What is sometimes overlooked is that the commandment to circumcise is not as much based on that family tradition begun 4000 years ago, but based on a verse in our Torah portion, describing the immediate aftermath of the birth of a boy, “and on the eighth day, his foreskin shall be excised.” (Vayikra 12:3) This view, that we circumcise not as much because of Abraham, but more on account of the commandment given at Sinai, is championed by Maimoinides in his commentary to Mishnah – Hullin chapter 7 – where he writes:

“You must know that everything we are careful about or do today, we only do it because of a commandment of God [delivered] through the hand of Moshe…. And we do not circumcise because Abraham circumcised himself and the men of his household, but because God commanded us, through Moshe's hand, to circumcise…”

In this week, which included Holocaust Remembrance Day, the obsession over Jewish circumcision is easily recalled through Holocaust films such as “Europa Europa” (1990), where the circumcised status of the protagonist, Solomon Perel, who hides as a member of the Hitler youth in the film (and real-life story), is not only an obsession of the film, but circumcision in general is also used as a punch line for the Germans when one of their prisoners proves he is not Jewish through showing them he is uncircumcised.

For the Jewish people, circumcision is not only a tradition, and a mitzvah, but our oldest identification mark. While it is true that circumcision today is a widespread custom through much of the world, and was even practiced at different time periods in ancient Egypt, it is largely identified as a Jewish act, perhaps more identifiable in this sense than anything other than Passover.

The Jewish gangsters of the ‘30s and ‘40s violated just about every Jewish tenet one could imagine, but they mostly married Jewish and all circumcised their sons. Why? Probably because they were proud of being Jewish, even if they did not practice (though Samuel Levine didn’t kill on the Sabbath!). Circumcising their boys was considered a mark of identification as a Jew.

In his Guide to the Perplexed 3:49, a chapter which must be read in its entirety, Maimonides makes this point: “This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust…”

While I don’t think I need to sell circumcision to the readers of this column, there are some things worth noting about the so-called religious circumcision industry, and the methods of circumcisions employed today. As in anything, let the buyer beware, and always do your research before hiring a mohel! 

Methods of circumcision: there are primarily three methods utilized by mohels today – freehand, shield, and clamp. Very few people use the freehand method, and those who do argue it is the least painful to the baby. It is also the second most dangerous as it doesn’t adequately protect the baby from an accidental amputation. Using a shield is the safer traditional method, which protects the parts we don’t want to touch, while not entering the realm of the problematic clamps. When used correctly, clamps have the chance to give the most asthetically pleasing and bloodless circumcision. While asthetics are certainly something to concern with, a bloodless bris is invalid (see halakhic objections to the clamp here), and google “botched circumcision” to see how dangerous clamps can be (possibly even more dangerous than freehand). Find out which method your mohel uses before hiring.

Metzitzah: the ancient ritual of removing blood from the circumcision spot immediately after the incision has been in the news of late because of the largely-Hassidic custom of doing this with the mouth directly. In a modern world, this method should go the way of the dodo-bird as halakhically valid metzitzah through a sterile-tube conforms with modern sensibilities and does not put the baby at risk. Not to mention that any time a 'metzitzah story' makes it to the newspapers a tremendous chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name) is perpetrated. Find out how your mohel does metzitzah before hiring!

Sterility: Some mohels autoclave their instruments. Some dip them in alcohol before circumcising. Inquire – he’s your baby! Some mohels wear gloves when they circumcise. Some refuse to. If you wouldn’t let a dentist clean your teeth (assuming no blood!) without wearing gloves, how can you consider allowing a mohel to circumcise your baby, causing a significant open wound, without his wearing sterile gloves?

Marking the foreskin with a surgical pen: Experienced surgeons mark their incision spot before operating, to guide their work and to remove one element of human error. While all surgeries and circumcisions are done by humans, capable of human fallibility and imperfection, marking is still a better method than estimating the extent of the foreskin. The benefit to babies with less foreskin or smaller surface area to work with cannot be overstated, and the appeal of a more precise and exact circumcision should be obvious to all. Inquire how your mohel assures or ascertains the proper amount of foreskin removal!

All of these suggestions are meant to help glorify this mitzvah and make its specific fulfillment more appealing and more honorable. Better than negative press about bris milah is no press about bris milah, when we simply fulfill our mitzvah without fanfare and we are blessed to have circumcisions that go without incident, and babies healing properly and families moving on with their Jewish lives, when the first mitzvah in the life of a baby is worry-free and filled with joy.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Living to Eat or Eating to Live

Parshat Shmini

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Having spent over eight days carefully scrutinizing every piece of food brought into our homes, it is very appropriate that the first parsha we read post-Pesach deals with the rules of kosher as they apply all year round.

Chametz is unique because it is a kind of food which is generally permitted, whose status changes for the holiday. Non-kosher, on the other hand, is always prohibited.

In an attempt to address some “kosher food” misnomers, let us address the following three questions.

  • Are the rules of kosher meant to be repressively restricting? 
  • Is it true that kosher is designed to have health benefits? 
  • Is a person who eats kosher holier than a person who eats non-kosher? 

The Sefer Hachinukh addresses these very questions in his discussions about the laws related to food in the following commandment numbers: 73, 147, 153-165.

The following ideas are a combination of his comments with an added modern social commentary.

It is very difficult for man to assign a thought process to God’s divine will. How dare we? Whether or not God does, in fact, think, is a question philosophers may debate forever. Suffice it to say, He gave the Jewish people the Torah, a law book, and we are meant to be bound its rules.

God sees everything and takes account of everything. Whether He chooses to punish now or to bide His time, these “choices” are not ours to make, nor to understand. It is within our power to choose how we will view the rules – as mindless restrictions, or as rules that are designed for us to live lives of holiness.

The Chinukh explains that there *may* be health benefits derived from avoiding bacteria-laden fats in all animals, as well as in non-kosher animals.

But the bottom line distinction lies in the key terms which distinguish between the kosher and non-kosher animals: tum’ah and tahara.

Tum’ah and tahara are generally wrongly translated as “impure” and “pure.” A more accurate translation would define tum’ah as “a status which serves as a barrier for participating in a holy act.” Tahara, the opposite of tum’ah, is “an object’s status in which a holy act is permitted.”

An object which begins in a state of tahara (ready for a holy act), can remain in such a state if it is treated appropriately. For example, an animal which is tahor, fit to be given to God as an offering in the Temple, a.k.a. kosher, will remain tahor if it is slaughtered properly. If improperly slaughtered, it is now unfit, tameh, and no longer allowed to be used for the holy act of offerings and sacrifices.

An item which exists in or attains a status of tum’ah has two options. The first is to remain tameh – this is the lot of the non-kosher animals. God has His purpose for putting them on this earth – but He does not want them as sacrifices. They are unfit and not-kosher.

On the other hand, a person who attains a status of tum’ah can remove the status to participate in a holy act. There are different levels of tum’ah, and each is removed in a different way. In the time of the Temple, one method of tum’ah removal was through the sprinkling of the ashes of the parah adumah (red heifer). A person who became tahor in this fashion could now enter the Temple and participate in bringing offerings to God, both holy acts.

The other method, still employed today, is removal of tum’ah through water. This is accomplished nowadays in primarily two formats: a. ritual washing of the hands associated with eating food, primarily bread, but sometimes even vegetables as we do at the seder (as well as upon waking or after using the restroom), and b. going to the mikvah, the ritual bath.

If the result of removing the tum’ah to achieve tahara is changing one’s status to allow participation in a holy act, we have just redefined two major elements of Jewish living as being acts of holiness: eating and the physical relationship between husband and wife.

Viewing these physical activities as holy acts is quite a different perspective from how the general society views them. But if they are holy acts, they have vitally significant and fundamentally sound reasons for having rules and regulations.

As such, the laws of family purity and kosher might be better off viewed as tremendous gifts which feed into the holiness of the Jewish people, as defined by the words which begin Leviticus 19 – “Kedoshim ti’h’yu” – you shall be a separate and special people, says God, “Ki kadosh ani” – for I am special. One need look no further than the word used for the first stage of Jewish marriage - Kiddushin - to see that marriage is in its ideal sense, a holy union.

And regarding eating - Jews are not holier because of kosher-food consumption. But the Jew who recognizes that eating is a holy act, committing oneself to the rules and guidelines which teach that eating is a holy act, does live an existence in which holiness has a very strong presence in his or her life.

See a related discussion in "Why Eat Kosher?"

Sunday, April 16, 2017

A New View on the Love Song of Shir HaShirim

Shabbos Chol HaMoed: The Universal Message of Shir HaShirim (A Sermon) 

 Rabbi Avi Billet 

Shir Hashirim is often described as a love song between God and the Jewish people. Most of the commentaries view the book as an allegory, and interpret the book in that vein. It is put on such a pedestal that when the Yalkut Shimoni begins his comments on Shir HaShirim he says the following:

ילקוט שמעוני שיר השירים רמז תתקפ
+א+ שיר השירים, שיר המשובח והמעולה שבשירים, ראב"ע עבד לה מתלא לאחד שהוליך סאה של חטים לנחתום ואמר הוצא ממנו קמח ואחר כך הוצא לי ממנה סולת ואחר כך הוצא לי גלוסקא, כך מכל חכמתו של שלמה לא סילת אלא שיר השירים לישראל, , רבי עקיבא אומר אין העולם כדאי כיום שניתן בו שיר השירים,

It’s the greatest of songs. Consider the parable of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya – comparing it to a person who brings some kernels of wheat to a baker saying, “Turn it into flour for me.” Then from the flour he says, “Produce סלת – an even finer flour.” Then from the סלת he says, “Make me a Gluska – the finest bread.” The great Tanna explained using a statement which is also often attributed to Rabbi Akiva, “This is what Shir hashirim is. It is the סלת of Solomon’s wisdom. Because all the songs are holy, כל השירים קדש ושיר השירים קדש קדשים – but Shir Hashirim is the holiest of holies.

The introduction continues with another statement of Rabbi Akiva – “that the world was essentially unfulfilled in its potential until Shir HaShirim was introduced to it. - אין העולם כדאי כיום שניתן בו שיר השירים”

There are a number of opinions regarding the authorship of Shir HaShirim. It is most famously attributed to King Solomon – Shlomo Hamelech wrote it, Rabbi Yonatan teaches us in Shir Hashirim Raba, as a young man. Then he wrote Mishlei and Koheles as he got older and looked at life a little differently.

However, Rashi notes on Baba Batra 14b that שיר השירים - נראה בעיני שאמרו לעת זקנתו.

Shir Hashirim was written when Shlomo was an old man. Which would suggest that Koheles – with all its cynicism and raised eyebrows – was written well before Shir Hashirim.

Rabbi Moshe Tendler suggested that Koheles has to be written by a young person. A young person raises all kinds of questions, a young person is trying to discover himself or herself. A young person sees all the contradictions in the world, and finds them troubling. A young person tries to find mentors, a young person clings to teachers, a young person has innocence stolen from beneath her feet, a young person wants to make sense of it all, but is confused, lost, not knowing what’s the proper path.

And, of course, the young person has very keen insight. Because the young person is looking at the world afresh, with a new pair of eyes that have not yet observed.

Of course, all that is in the ideal world. Nowadays we see – both in college campuses and even in yeshivos – a blind allegiance to the perspective shared by professors and, yes, even rebbeim.

The point of Koheles is to show that if I have real problems, and if I see contradictions, I ought to consider both sides of the equation, and not jump to conclusions based on only one perspective. A real investigation, especially a theological one and a philosophical one, is intellectually honest, and also intellectually curious. Taking anyone’s word for granted is an exercise in numbing and dumbing the brain, rather than strengthening it through real challenges, and real attempts at achieving a diversity of views that reflect a human being’s attempt to reconcile difficulties on the one hand, while forming and shaping one’s identity on the other.

And of course, an emunah-based system begins with basic assumptions and truths. But that does not mean that a person can’t or shouldn’t swing on some kind of proverbial pendulum through one’s life. One of my favorite lines that demonstrate this is from the Rashbam, Rashi’s grandson, who – in the beginning of his commentary on Parshas Vayeshev – quotes his grandfather Rashi, with whom he had been recently speaking, who told him that if he only had the time he would rewrite his entire Peirush on Chumash.

But a lifelong pursuit of answers, of thought leading to knowledge and wisdom and understanding needs to lead somewhere.

And so Rabbi Tendler’s point is – by the time a person is older, the way he wants to look back on life and a relationship with God is one of Shir HaShirim. That after a life filled with all kinds of experiences, one wants to be able to reflect and say, “I am in love with the Master of the World.”

That’s all fine and good if one accepts Shlomo as the author. However, even Yalkut Shimoni is not satisfied with that

ילקוט שמעוני שיר השירים רמז תתקפ
 תני בשם רבי נתן הקדוש ברוך הוא אמרו שנאמר שיר השירים אשר לשלמה למי שהשלום שלו, ר"ג אומר מלאכי השרת אמרוהו שיר שאמרו אותו שרים של מעלה 

So now who are the possible authors? The one Who is the Master of Peace – HKBH Himself. Or the angels.

And this question gives us pause to consider another way to look at Shir HaShirim.

Meaning, if the author is Shlomo – it seems very simple. It’s a love story between every Jew and our Creator. And those of us who want to love God can learn from it.

But if it’s God Who wrote it or dictated it, or if it’s the angels who wrote it or dictated it, what does this say about the love story? God’s going to tell us to love Him? He needs this whole book? He told us in the Shema – we know this. We don’t need more than ואהבת את ה' א-לקיך.

So I think it’s important to understand something about Shir HaShirim. Adina Yael Sternberg wrote an article in Megadim 36, in which her conclusion includes a viewpoint that the lover, the דוד is the searcher and the seeker, while the beloved, the רעיה, is the admired and the sought. This is a little different than calling the דוד Israel and the רעיה God. But she analyzes the pursuit of this relationship on three levels.

The first is the Shlomo (the presumed author’s) personal life.

The second is the nationalistic pursuit of Shlomo’s time period.

The third is the eternal nationalistic pursuit of Am Yisrael – which spans time and generations. 

There isn’t time to go through each of these approaches now. But the idea that there are layers to Shir HaShirim as a love-story is quite compelling, which actually leads me to take one more passage from Yalkut Shimoni to a direction we don’t discuss enough in our community in general.

Shir Hashirim Asher LiShlomo – to the one to whom Peace is His. He navigates peace ונוהג שלום עם בריותיו through all of His creatures. And then Yalkut Shimoni gives examples.

The sun shines on the righteous and on the wicked. It doesn't discriminate.

עושה שלום במרומיו – in all of His realms. Water in clouds doesn’t stop lightning from functioning. Lightning doesn’t burn up the water-filled-clouds. Sun and moon and stars are all heavenly luminaries – stars are made out of gas and fire – but there is peace in the heavens. They don’t destroy one another.

In the plague of hail there was fire and ice mixed together, but they were able to coexist. At Sinai, there was a cloud, and there was smoke. And the two didn’t destroy one another or wipe the other away.

And in the heavens as well, in the Maaseh Merkavah – Yechezkel’s vision, the lion and the bull are together, while on earth it seems such a relationship is not so simple.

And I think that the different levels of a love story in Shir HaShirim ought to teach us a profound lesson. God can manage his heavenly creatures. The question is why can’t we do it here?

There was a cute story in the news 10 days ago, concerning a little girl in South Carolina, recently toilet trained, who was brought to a store to get a gift for her accomplishment.

As the article put it, this was her short term goal. And her long term goal is to become a doctor. Her mother posted a picture of Sophia and her new doll, who is a doctor doll, with labcoat, and other accoutrements.

Now I’m quoting from the article directly.
The doll Sophia picked out is black and Sophia happens to be white, and the cashier at the store asked Sophia if she picked out the wrong doll. "Sophia continued to stare blankly as I let the cashier know that she was a prize for Sophia being fully potty trained,” her mother wrote.
The cashier responded, "Are you sure this is the doll you want, honey?"
Sophia said, "Yes, please!"
When the cashier said, "But she doesn't look like you. We have lots of other dolls that look more like you," Sophia's mother became angry
But Sophia said: "Yes, she does. She's a doctor like I'm a doctor. And I'm a pretty girl and she's a pretty girl. See her pretty hair? And see her stethoscope?" 

Of course this is a story about a cute little girl who completely gets that people are people, and about a bigoted cashier who sees things only in black and white.

I am a very big believer that Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream that people “should be judged not by the color of the skin but by the content of their character” is a heaven sent truism.

But how many of us truly accept it? How many of us have an inherent prejudice?

How many of us have used a certain derogatory Yiddish term to describe an aid, medical assistant, or household help? I won’t even repeat the word here because I find it abhorrent.

L’havdil – it’s not exactly the same, but it’s similar: I have a friend in Hollywood who was born and grew up, until his late teens in the former Soviet Union. He told me once, “It’s funny. In Russia, I was ‘Jew.’ Here I’m ‘the Russian.’”

I’ve spoken to people in this community and elsewhere who have sidled over to me, thinking for some God-knows-what reason, that making a comment about someone they encountered on the street and including the person’s skin color in the conversation is something I might relate to. And I call them on it, every time. How dare someone’s skin color come into the conversation? Do you want to be judged for being a racist?

As a mohel I am called every now and then to perform the ritual of Hatafas Dam Bris – it’s the drawing of Blood of the Covenant from a male who is already circumcised, who is about to complete his conversion.

Sometimes it’s just one person – the last two times I did this were when an entire family was converting, and when a middle-aged couple were converting – though my role was limited to the husband in both cases (the family had two daughters). In both cases, after the adults went through the mikveh, they got married again under a chuppah. Very beautiful – very special experience.

The family was from Puerto Rico. The middle aged couple were black Americans. In this latter case, as the converting rabbi was going through all the questions one asks at this time – the Jewish people are hated across the globe, are you sure you want to join us, etc? Do you accept that an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle might be a little more expensive, where you live, the food you buy – are you committed to it, etc? – one of the rabbis present said to me “we should also say ‘are you aware that you might experience racism in the Orthodox community?’”

And naïve me – I said “What are you talking about?”

And I’ve since found out that I am very naïve. Because I thought everyone thought and believed that “people are to be judged ONLY by the content of their character.”

I sincerely hope that what I am alluding to here does not exist among our people. We tell our children that the only thing we hope you absolutely share with a potential spouse is values and religion – because those are the ingredients for a happy life and marriage. What the person looks like does not matter.

The message of God being the author or the one who dictated Shir HaShirim is that things which seem opposite are not in conflict. Because it’s not about color – it’s about content of character. The sun and the moon – very opposite in looks. But they both illuminate and contribute so much to the world.

Lightning and rain – very different in looks! But lightning powers the world and water powers the world.

Smoke on a mountain and a cloud on a mountain – very different molecular structure! But they both prove God’s presence at Sinai, and herald the giving of the Torah.

Shir HaShirim demonstrates that there are two components to a love relationship. The pursuer and the one who agrees to be pursued.

Just look at God and the Jewish people – could anything be more opposite in looks? And yet what do we share? An eternal love for one another that spans every generation and every horrible thing we’ve done and that God has done.

All of our sins and turnings away from God, and all the devastation God has allowed to take place. From Churbans to Crusades to massacres and a Holocaust.

What binds us is much deeper – בני בכורי ישראל and ואהבת את ה' אלקיך.

That’s the easy definition of Shir HaShirim. The difficult one is for humans to love one another because of all we have in common, and as long as we can coexist (because the other human isn’t trying to kill me), we take the lesson from Shir HaShirim and see people for who they are – between the balance of their Neshama and their goodness – and never never never based on what they look like.

Monday, April 3, 2017

Dayenu - Enough to Give Thanks

A Mini Shabbos HaGadol Drasha 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the highlights of many a Seder is the recitation of Dayenu (it would have been enough). The simplest question is, would each stage of the Dayenu song really have been enough? You brought us to the sea but didn’t bring us through it (we might have died!)? You brought to Sinai but didn’t give us the Torah (then what was the purpose)?

Years ago, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag told me that Dayenu is only half a sentence. The rest, implied, is “for us to give thanks.” After all, once Exodus from Egypt is accomplished, everything else is icing on the delicious leaving-bondage cake.

Based on the Talmud in Megillah (14a) we can suggest that song is directed towards God when being freed from slavery and when being saved from death. (The recitation of Hallel is a longer discussion)

The Talmud notes that we don’t say Hallel on Rosh Hashana because the books of life and death are open Rosh Hashana (32b). It’s therefore also not a time to sing Shira (songs of praise). However, the Talmud recounts the double-tale of splitting of the sea, when the angels were not allowed to sing, while the Israelites were permitted to sing (Sanhedrin 39b). For the Egyptians, their books of Life and Death lay open, and the angels, advocating perhaps for one side, could not sing a song of thanks. The Israelites were singing for their own salvation!

In truth, we can ask why the Israelites didn’t sing a song until after the splitting of the sea. After all, if Dayenu means “it would have been enough for us to give thanks,” where’s the thanks at every stage – in all the plagues and even at the actual Exodus. Why wait a week?

Perhaps the real salvation was finally noticed when they realized they had gone through the same waterways, had gone on the same dry land between the walls of water, and they emerged unscathed while the Egyptians drowned. And so, only at that point, did they sing their Shirah.

The splitting of the sea was so momentous that the Talmud tells us even fetuses in the womb sang praise that day. (Ketubot 7b) The people sang that day because of their great trust in God, a quality implanted in them by their father Avraham (Shmot Raba Beshalach 23)

Clearly giving a song of thanks is a good thing. At the Seder, beyond the Hallel recited, the 4 cups of wine and the matzah also serve as vehicles for the giving of thanks, and singing song, as it were, for the miracles of the Exodus.

The Midrash in Tehillim (119) notes that people who give thanks are “Temimei Derekh”, Chassidim, Yesharim – those whose ways are straight and pure (based on Tehilllim 33:1)

And so it behooves us, at this time of year, to ask ourselves what we are thankful for. When we don’t have football, turkey and stuffing (chametz gamur!) to distract us from our true Thanksgiving, let us consider what we can minimally be grateful for, even if this gratitude doesn’t push us to break out in song.

In no particular order, let us remember to be grateful, and when possible to express our gratitude to:

Parents – if they are alive, for the gift of life. For being there for us. For never giving up on us. And if they’re no longer alive, for all of the above plus – we thank them through quoting them, thinking about and remembering them, and honoring their legacy through being a positive merit to their presence in this world.

Spouses – for everything. For picking me. For asking me out on that first date. For believing in me. For believing that I am the person you wanted to spend your life with. For convincing me that I was good enough for you. Because heaven knows I’ve always believed I got the better deal.

If no longer with first spouse, due to death or divorce - For the life we shared, for the children we have, for the good times we had, and even the rough things we went through together. Even those who are divorced might be grateful for being freed from the marriage that went sour, or for the get that was transferred (hopefully without incident).

Siblings – For having my back, no matter what. For the close relationships we share that even a spouse doesn’t “get.”

Children – Be grateful to God for the ability to have children. So many suffer from infertility. Be grateful for the nachas they gave you and continue to give you. Be grateful for what you learned from them, and continue to learn from them. Be grateful that they think you’re the best mother or father in the world. Be grateful for every grandchild they give you. (This next one is tongue in cheek) Be grateful for your children-in-law for taking your child out of your house and for dealing with the idiosyncrasies you know so well.

Friends – Be grateful for friendships that span time and place, that last 20, 30, 40, 70+ years. Shooting breeze, going out, playing mahjongg, going out for dinner, vacations, cruises, seeing your children carry on the friendships you cherish. Be grateful for friends, to whom you can say anything, and they still love you. Who say things to you, and you take it to heart and adjust. To whom you turn for advice. And it’s always free.

We must be able to recognize and express our gratitude to God often. Not necessarily in the form of Hallel or a breakout in song. But in seeing Him in all the good and bad in our lives, and recognizing He has a plan for each of us. Had we only had one gift in our lives, it would have been enough to give thanks. The fact that we have so many, should surely be a reason to express gratitude.

If we can become people who express gratitude to one another and to the people who matter most in our lives – our family members, friends, and the greater family of a community in which each of us lives, we will train ourselves to be people who carry a mantle of Godliness because we bring good cheer to all those who encounter us, our family, our friends, and God Himself.