What was Yishmael Doing (to Yitzchak?)?

Parshat Vayera 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

            

In all of the Torah, Yishmael and Yitzchak have (maybe) one encounter, other than burying Avraham together. As the Torah describes Avraham making a party over Yitzchak's weaning, it describes Sarah's concern over what she witnessed: Yishmael was "m'tzachek," perhaps towards or with Yitzchak. Or not.

            

What does "m'tzachek" mean?

            

Avimelekh will later witness Yitzchak being "m'tzachek" his wife. I don't know of any commentary who views that as a negative act.

            

Certainly in context, with everyone smiling and laughing over the birth of Yitzchak (the root "tzchok" appears five times in 8 verses), one would think Yishmael is doing nothing out of the ordinary to Yitzchak.

            

Midrash Aggada suggests he bent over and kissed him. This should be viewed as nothing more than an older brother kissing his cute little brother. Until you read that the Midrash compares the "m'tzachek" verb to a similar one describing the lewd behavior surrounding the worship of the Golden Calf. (Why not compare it the word in the Yitzchak/Rivkah context?)

            

Midrash also records the more well known opinion (made famous by Rashi) that Yishmael was pulling a "William Tell" move on Yitzchak, perhaps with the intent to kill (based on verses in Mishlei 26:18-19).

            

Rabbi Akiva compares our "m'tzachek" verb to the one used by Potiphar's wife in her accusing Yosef of trying to seduce her (based on Bereshit 39:17), while Rabbi Yishmael (ironically) suggests he was teaching Yitzchak about idolatry (comparing to the Golden Calf verse). Rabbi Eliezer (son of Rabbi Yosi Haglili) said "m'tzachek" refers to murder, as he compared it to Samuel II 2:14. (Pesikta Zutrasa)

            

Onkelos said "Mtzachek" means he was smiling. While Targum YOnatan suggests idolatry.

            

Ibn Ezra suggests Sarah was jealous because Yishmael was bigger than her son. Radak says Yitzchak was an easy target because his parents were "old."

            

Ramban rejects a whole host of views and concludes that it's all a question of inheritance. Yishmael was born as a result of Sarah's graciousness in giving Hagar to Avraham. Now that she had borne Yitzchak and he was to inherit, Sarah did not want Yishmael to get too comfortable with Yitzchak – to avoid fights in the future. (See also Rashbam and Midrash Sechel Tov)

            

Chizkuni felt that Yishmael was trying to play with Yitzchak in a mature – not age-appropriate way. Which Sarah viewed as a threat to her son's well-being.

            

Seforno says Yishmael was mocking the party Avraham had made in Yitzchak's honor, particularly as he spread the barnyard slander he had heard of people claiming Avimelekh was the father of the baby. This never bothered Sarah until she heard it from Yishmael, because before then she had been preoccupied with the birth and getting back to routine.

            

The Malbim suggests this is the reason why Sarah refers to him as "the son of Hagar the Egyptian" as if to contrast him with her own son – who is clearly her son, with Avraham, as the Torah repeatedly confirms.

            

In an extreme interpretation, Rabbenu Bachya even suggests Yishmael’s mocking behavior warranted a death sentence, because a servant who mocks his master may be killed. From this perspective, the subsequent banishment was actually saving Yishmael’s life.

            

I personally prefer the approach of the Tosefta – even though Ramban rejects it – because it looks at the context of what Sarah is saying, "Banish him because he will not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak."

            

The Tosefta suggests that Sarah saw the "m'tzachek" to be a mocking of everyone who was celebrating Yitzchak's birth as the birth of the inheritor. "I am the firstborn," thought Yishmael, "and I am obviously going to inherit the double portion that is my rite and entitlement – everyone who thinks otherwise is a fool."

            

It is true that the possibilities abound, but the imperative question to address is how much of a thought process did Yishmael have? Was he so vindictive and evil? Or was he just a teenager?

            

Was he – a person who grew up in Avraham's home – really so troubled that he could engage in idolatry, murder, immorality?

            

We raise our children and we don't agree with all of their choices. In some cases, their choices really trouble us.

            

But there are some things which are so ingrained in their personalities and upbringing that, barring a real psychological episode, we can be nearly 100% certain they will not be engaging in activities that are so against the very fabric of our essence and our nature as the Jewish people.

            

May we merit to fulfill the positive sides of "m'tzachek" with our families and loved ones. And may the negative "m'tzachek" interpretations remain in the realm of homiletics and drash. A nice thought, but not a reflection of who we are. Amen.

When In An Argument...

In the parsha, the forefather in question is named Avram until his name change at his circumcision. Following the adjudication of Berachot 13a, he is referred to as "Avraham" in this article.

Parshat Lekh Lekha

The King of Egypt discovers the woman he has brought into his chambers is married to a different man, and he makes all kinds of accusations. "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me she is your wife? Why did you say she is your sister, leading me to take her as a wife? Now – take your wife and go!" Paraoh then commanded and sent him and his wife out of the land. (12:18-20)

            

Avraham's response to this is silence. Either he is not given a chance to respond, or perhaps more likely, he recognized that responding, whether truthfully or in anger, would go nowhere. Avraham knew that having the last word was not only unnecessary, but were it be the wrong word, it may come back to bite him. After all, he did come to Egypt looking for help. He should be grateful he is going free (with many gifts!) with merely a tongue lashing.

            

The king of Sodom arrogantly tells Avraham, who has just saved him and his people at tremendous peril and self sacrifice, that Avraham should give him the POWs as he gives Avraham permission to keep the booty that is rightfully Avraham's.

Avraham does have the last word as he tells the king that he does not intend to keep anything beyond what his men have already eaten. Sometimes you need to give the swift kick and end the conversation. Especially since the gratitude should have come in the other direction – from King of Sodom towards Avraham. (14:17-24)

            

In both cases, Avraham does not have nor does he intend to pursue a longer term relationship with these kings. Though the reason for each encounter likely contributes to how Avraham chooses to deal with the person in question.

Let us look, however, at the two arguments Avraham has with people for whom he does care deeply.

          
When Avraham's shepherds argue with Lot's shepherds, Avraham is the one who intervenes saying, "Let there not be an argument between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are brothers."

          
He gives Lot a very generous offer – You pick where you want to be. Stay here or pick a direction. Whatever you choose, I will go the other way. (13:8-9) That Lotchooses to go to Sodom is aseparate factor. But they part in peace and Avraham has achieved his objective.

          
After Sarah gives her maid to Avraham, demonstrating tremendous self-sacrifice and concern for her husband so he could have a son, Hagar denigrates her mistress who has been suffering with infertility for years. "I am angry at you," she says to Avraham, "because I gave you my maid, she has become pregnant, and I have become denigrated." (16:3-5)

          
It is ironic that Avraham is blamed for doing exactly what his wife told him to do. But note how he does not say, "Why are you yelling at me? It's YOUR fault! You asked for this! What do you expect of me? I did what you told me! I'm going to be the father I always wanted to be. I'm going to have a child – something you could never provide for me!"

He does say, "Here is your maid. Do to her what is best in your eyes." (16:6) Radak says Avraham did this for the sake of Shalom Bayis (to preserve peace in their home), so Sarah can feel good about herself again one day.

There is a much longer conversation to be had about how Hagar was treated in this incident. The commentaries are split over the choices made here - Ramban is critical of both Sarah and Avraham on account of her treatment of Hagar, the Riva defends them both. Radak says though we normally learn model behavior from the forefathers, here we learn how not to treat someone from the way Hagar is treated.

The question here is, do Avraham and Sarah respect one another in this exchange? It's not like with the kings where you either ignore the person or tell him off. Even more than he cared for Lot Avraham cared for his wife. And as his demonstration of compromise played out with Lot, it played out even moreso with his wife, with whom he intended to live for the rest of his life.

And it is completely in character for Avraham. Remember how he resolved the dispute with Lot. You choose. You decide. I don't need to have the last word. I don't need to be the one sitting on top, sitting on the gold mine, with the choice land or property. I want YOU to be happy. I want YOU to find peace.

It's hard to judge Sarah. She is a woman who has suffered terribly – with infertility, her maid's mistreating her, and her maid getting pregnant right away while Sarah remains barren.

But Avraham certainly teaches us a few things about the "rules of engagement" in an argument.

Ben Zoma concludes a listing of a few important rhetorical questions (Avot 4:1) by asking, "Who is honored? Who is honorable? One who gives honor to all of God's creatures." Certainly the first place to begin is with one's loved ones. Treat them with respect. Preserve their dignity at all times. Don't argue in front of other people.

A person must not say. "You were wrong and I was right. You always do this. You don't care about me. Nothing that matters to me matters to you. Your choices disgust me. I would never do the things you do, treat others the way you do, talk about myself the way you do, or think so highly of myself that I could never admit I might be wrong. But YOU. All the time – always the same. When will you ever learn?"

A person needs to think in the following way. "I am going to express my needs. What I have done, my reasoning, why I did it. I will explain where I am coming from. I will explain my choices. I will emphasize my commitment and dedication to this relationship. I care about you. I care about us. Above all, I want there to be peace between us. I want to hear your side, I want to hear your perspective, and really want us to come to a resolution."

As long as communication is done respectfully, resolution is attainable with dignity, honor, respect, and love. After all, "Who is most honored?" Those who want the best for one another, and demonstrate it through treating one another with the utmost respect.

Envisioning A New World

Parshat Noach

The contrast between the beginning of the book of Bereshit and our parsha is not only striking in terms of God's vision for the world, but is even fascinating to compare on a textual level.

After completing creation, "And God saw all that He had done, and behold it was very good." (1:31) Compare that to the beginning of Chapter 6, "Hashem saw that man's wickedness on earth was increasing. Every impulse of his innermost thought was only for evil, all day long." (6:5)

            

Unlike the optimism that came with God's declarations of "Let there be light" (1:3) and "Let us make Man" (1:26), we see, "Hashem regretted that He had made man on earth, and He was pained to His very core. Hashem said, 'I will obliterate humanity that I have created from the face of the earth - man, livestock, land animals, and birds of the sky. I regret that I created them.'" (6:6-7)

            

[A very lively conversation can be had over the usages of "Elokim" (which I translate in verses as "God") and the "shem havaya" Tetragrammaton (which I translate in verse as "Hashem"). In the interest of space, that conversation will be ignored now, beyond noting it in the translation.]

            

Despite the regret over the creation of Man, God chooses to rebuild the world not with a new, perhaps more perfect model of humans, but with one specific human who "has found favor in God's eyes." (6:8)

            

In other words, the prototype seems to be what God wants. It's just the wrongly mutated models which have caused God to "regret" the first 1650 (or so) years of human endeavor.

            

Like Adam, Noach had 3 sons who are named in the Torah. Unlike the terms "Adam" (human) and "Basar" (flesh) which are used to describe the flawed human beings (6:6,13), Noach is called an "Ish" (6:9, 9:20) – the same term used to describe Adam when he is first introduced to his wife – before any sinning had taken place. "She will be called 'Ishah' (woman) for she had been taken from 'Ish' (man)." (2:23) "Ish," it seems, is a better kind of human than an Adam or a Basar.

            

The difference between Noach's world and the world of Adam, however is laid out in how the world is described and what God sees and says.

            

In the beginning the land was empty and void with the spirit of God hovering over the water's surface. God said, "Let there be light" and it was, and God saw the light was good. (summary of 1:1-4)

            

In Noach's time, "… The land was filled with crime. God saw the world, and it was corrupted. All flesh had perverted its way on the earth. God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me. The world is filled with [man's] crime. I will therefore destroy them with the earth…'" (6:11-13)

            

Which world would be the ideal? The world with the spirit of God hovering, or a crime-ridden corrupt world? The world where God says "Let there be light" or where God says, "The end of all flesh has come?" The world in which God sees light and calls it Good, or one in which God sees a corrupt world on account of the acts of Basar – all made-of-flesh beings – which must be darkened and destroyed so a new effort by a man described as being righteous could begin?

            

There are different reasons why new beginnings might come about. A child is born – the child did not exist before, it has a clean slate and a world of opportunity before it. What life it will have will be determined by its parents and by what Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik called the "Covenantal Community" in which it is raised.

            

A person or family move to a new community or are the pioneers in creating a new community, they have a tremendous opportunity to build a world that follows the ideal of the sprit of God hovering, in which the focus is on creating light, and making a very clear division between light and darkness.

            

And sometimes a new beginning comes about because what has happened in the past has brought a person to the pits of despair. An addiction, a bad breakup, a divorce, a death, being fired from a job, being frustrated with a spiritually empty life and returning to God, the pursuit of materialism turned to a pursuit of meaning in life.

            

Both beginnings bring a tremendous potential. They begin with similar qualities.

            

But the role a person plays in either beginning has a tremendous impact on whether the endeavor will be successful or not. Adam and Chava ate from a tree and threw their potential into the wind. They produced two sons, one of which died at the hands of his murderous brother, who himself was banished to a life of wandering. They only seemed to get real "nachas" from their third son, an ancestor of Noach.

            

Noach also had three sons – and while they did not kill one another, they too had the opportunity to follow their father's footsteps for good – and he seemed to only be successful with two out of three.

            

Despite all our best efforts, nothing is perfect. But everything has potential. Our challenge is to tap into the potential for good in every person and opportunity. And hopefully, with God's help, we can build a world that God can look down upon and say, "It is very good."

An "Ezer" Against Him

Parshat Beresheet

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After describing the Tree of Knowledge and the instruction for how it is to be treated, the Torah describes God as saying, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him an "ezer" opposite him." [In the interest of being politically correct, we will not translate the word "ezer" right now.]

One would expect that the "ezer" would be created immediately. However, there is a strange interlude during which God fashions all of the animals of the earth, and the birds of the heavens to see what the man would name them. After naming the animals, we are told he did not find an "ezer" opposite him. In other words, after meeting all the animals, he felt none had been made as a partner for himself.

Only after this discovery does the Torah continue where it left off with God's "thought process" as it describes the process of how woman was formed.

Why the interlude? Was the post-creation party meant to assert who was created first? The dominion of man over animals? Was it meant to make clear how much Adam was missing in not having an "ezer"?

The Netziv describes the difference between the "ezer" that Adam was missing, and the companions he saw in all the animals. What Adam saw was that every animal's partner was essentially a partner for procreation, while there was no partnership or companionship beyond the achievement of that goal of reproduction.

Humans, on the other hand, have a need for companionship that goes beyond a simple, physical act. In a sense, this is what we call the "human connection" in which a real bond beyond words and physical acts makes a relationship special.

The interpretation of Rashi that "If a man merits, she is an 'ezer,' and if he does not merit then she is 'opposite him,'" is known. However, Netziv explains, the Torah is not describing two options, that she can either be an 'ezer' or she can be against him.

Rather, it is to be understood that her "opposition" can help him. A man with a temper can have his wife "help him." Either his temper helps him feel good, or his wife steps in to cover his ineptitude when his temper overtakes his emotions. In this way, she is his "ezer." (supporting a bad character trait) However, when the mood passes, Netziv explains, his guilt is even worse on account of the fuel his wife poured on the fire of his emotions, and that works against him.

On the other hand, if she opposes his anger from the beginning and brings him to calm down, even though she is acting against him, this is the true form of what it means to be an "ezer."

The Netziv's message is that the concept of a wife being an "ezer" and against him puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the woman to help her husband become a better person. Does it always work? Is her ability to discern when he is wrong a perfect ability? Depends who you ask. (I'm going to get it for this one!)

But the fact remains – in Netziv's approach – that sometimes being "against him" is a way of being his "ezer," helping him to improve his ways and become a better person. Or a more fulfilled person.

This is why the interlude is so important. Adam needed to understand the animal kingdom and to see that he and they are very different. We live in a world in which people see their pets as children and value their animals' lives, in some cases,  more than the lives of human strangers.

So Adam's first lesson is – "You are not an animal. You may share certain characteristics, but the bottom line is that you can never achieve with an animal what you can achieve with another human being." And a human being must be treated on a much higher level than how you will treat an animal.

Adam's second lesson is – "Don't view every confrontation that you have with a spouse as the end of the game. It is merely a means of helping you draw closer to one another."

It is this second lesson which is so difficult for partners who squabble to remember. There are some people who do not know how to move past a fight. They don't talk to each other for days and weeks, and may bring about divorce or worse if they don't see their fights are meant to bring them closer together.

But those whose attitude is, "I am in this for the long haul and will stick through this" must also realize that while adults will argue and fight, if their running theme is that they are on the same team, as opposed to adversaries, then even the fights can bring them closer together as their relationship is improved through the strengths they each bring to the table.

God's Four Species

Sukkot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Leviticus 23:40: "On the first day, you must take for yourself a fruit of the citron tree, an unopened palm frond, myrtle branches, and willows [that grow near] the brook. You shall rejoice before God for seven days."

This translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah, where he has the following footnotes sourcing the definitions of the branches and fruit in question.

"citron tree - (Targum; Saadia). Hadar in Hebrew, usually referred to as Ethrog."unopened palm frond - (Sukkah 32a; Rashi)."myrtle branches – (cf. Sukkah 32b; Rashi). The practice is to place three such branches in the bunch."willows... - (cf. Sukkah 34a). Two are placed in the bunch, together with the palm frond and myrtle."

The curiosity that pervades these days – the kind that overrides the "Bible states, therefore it is" explanation – may cause people to wonder "Why these specific items? What, if anything, is 'special' about them?"

The Sefer HaManhig explains that the Etrog (citron) resembles a heart (in shape), and comes to bring atonement for the (sinful) thoughts of the heart. The Hadas (myrtle) resembles eyes (in shape) to atone for (sins) of probing eyes. These two follow the verse, "You will then not stray after your heart and eyes…" (Bamidbar 15:39). The Aravah (willow) resembles the lips, to atone for sins that come from utterances of the lips. And why the Lulav (palm frond)? Just as the Lulav (לולב) has only one heart (this is a play on the word Lulav – which can be read in Hebrew as "Lo Lev" (לו לב) – it has a heart of palm!), so too Israel has only one heart, which is directed towards its Father in heaven.

It would seem that the four species are heavily symbolic in that they help us achieve atonement that may have escaped our Yom Kippur efforts. This revelation would indicate that those who poke others with their Lulav, or who shake the Lulav set in a manner similar to a Jedi light-sabre, are missing the point of the mitzvah.

Even for those who don't care so much for the "shape of item resembles a body-part" approach, there are textual suggestions that make these items even more compelling.

In Vayikra Rabba 30:9, in a statement sometimes accredited to Rabbi Akiva, the Midrash demonstrates how each of the Four Species is a reference to the Almighty. The Pri Etz Hadar (Etrog) refers to God, as it says, "You (God) are clothed in majesty and splendor (Hadar)." (Tehillim 104:1)

The Kapot T'marim (Lulav) refers to God, as it says, "The righteous flourish like a date palm (Tamar)." (Tehillim 92:13) The Anaf Etz Avot (Hadasim) refer to God, as it says, "And He was standing among the myrtles (Hadasim)." (Zechariah 1:8) [This reference is to the vision of an angel.] And Arvei Nachal (Aravot) refer to God, as it says, "With His name [as identified in the verse], acclaim the One who rides the Aravot [the highest firmament of the heavens]."

By all rights, argues the Chid"a, we should not be allowed to use these items. These are God's belongings – the Lulav is comparable to God's scepter! Even were the king to allow his subjects to minimize his honor, the Talmud states in numerous places that he is ignored. His honor is not his own to discard.

However, explains the Chid"a, since the Children of Israel are described in the Torah as God's children (Devarim 14:1), the contrasted ruling to that of the king is that if a father forgives his honor, he is granted that allowance, and his children can make use of his property.

Some of the senior members of our People recall a time when very few individuals, or perhaps only the rabbi had a set of the Four Species. We are to be grateful that we live in a time when not only are the Four Species available all around the world, but most Jews can afford their own set.

As the holiday of Sukkot comes upon us, and we undertake the mitzvah of the Four Species, let us express our gratitude for the fortuitous circumstance that allows for the widespread observance of this mitzvah. Let us also appreciate the hidden depth in the mitzvah, as we are given the chance to get closer to God through holding and waving the items that are Biblically connected directly to Him.

Sinning Against Myself - Am I My Worst Enemy?

A Yom Kippur Letter

by Rabbi Avi Billet

I beg your indulgence as I share with you this personal letter penned by me to me. It was important to write it, following the lesson of the Chasam Sofer (see below), so that the message would come across (to me) and not go right out the other ear. The "we" in the letter is royal - comes with the territory of talking to oneself.  I added the question that refers to "72-100 hour work week" for the benefit of others who may do (or are successful at) what the question suggests. Thank you for listening to me talk to myself.

Dear Me,

In the seventh chapter of the Laws of Teshuvah (Repentance), Maimonides reminds us that even not-so-obvious "sins" require a repentance of some kind.

"A person should not think that repentance is only necessary for those sins that involve deeds such as promiscuity, robbery, or theft. Rather, just as a person is obligated to repent from these, similarly, he must search after the evil character traits he has. He must repent from anger, hatred, envy, frivolity, the pursuit of money and honor, the pursuit of gluttony, and the like. He must repent for all [of the above]."These sins are more difficult than those that involve deed. If a person is attached to these, it is more difficult for him to separate himself. In this context, [Isaiah 55:7] exhorts: 'May the wicked abandon his path and the crooked man, his designs.'"

The quote from Isaiah is quite familiar to any shul-goer, because it is at the beginning of the haftorah that we read at Mincha on fast days, when the listener is encouraged to "Seek out God where He could be found."

The prophet continued his exhortation instructing the crooked man to 

"Return to the Lord, Who shall have mercy upon him… and will freely pardon. 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' says the Lord.'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts [higher] than your thoughts. For, just as the rain and the snow fall from the heavens, and it does not return there… so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, unless it has done what I desire and has made prosperous the one to whom I sent it…'" (Isaiah 55:7-11)

The Chasam Sofer used this instruction to remind even the greatest of scholars that there is merit to hearing a person give a public rebuke. In other words, to the scholars who believed they could get more out of learning "mussar" and ethical teachings on their own, Rabbi Sofer would say they could gain even more from attending a lecture or class from an instructor. I'm hoping this letter will serve as that rebuke - even though (rightly) don't count yourself among the greatest of scholars. :)

Rain or snow fall from the heavens and they do their job. It may take a little time for the rain or snow to penetrate the earth, seek out the roots and have their desired impact, but there is no question that the moisture is the solution for the problem of the dry, parched, or at least unwatered earth. Even if the impact is not felt right away, every farmer will tell you that a good crop is heavily dependent on the rainfalls.

And so to even the greatest scholar, Rabbi Sofer would issue the reminder that all your learning is nice, but the mussar and ethical teachings that are self-learned go in one ear and out the other.

When the exhortation comes from someone else, on the other hand, (ahem!) it is like a message from God that penetrates and will eventually land its mark on your soul.

The Rambam's list of deeds that fall out of the realm of directly punishable actions bear repeating. "Anger, hatred, envy, frivolity, the pursuit of money and honor, the pursuit of gluttony." These are often enough character traits that impact oneself more than they impact others.

Every time we think about teshuvah, perhaps we've thought about how we've wronged God or how we've wronged other people.

This statement from Maimonides reminds us that we also need to be concerned that we may have wronged ourselves. And maybe this should trigger a different line of questioning than the more regular one the "mussar teachers" are prone to share.

Am I pleased with myself? Do I treat myself right? Do I eat healthily, or do I pursue unhealthy food options just because I can't help myself? Is my anger in check? Even if no one ever sees it but me, like when I'm driving or when I analyze my relationships in my heart? Do I really need to work 72-100 hour weeks to make so much money, especially if it's at the expense of not ever seeing my family? And why do I hate everyone in my heart of hearts?

Sometimes the greatest enemy we have, the one that brings us down, is the one that stares at us in the mirror.

A - 

As we embrace Yom Kippur, it is my hope that these words can be like the rain that falls and doesn't return to God emptyhanded. Every person can use a reminder that there is more to teshuvah than only getting forgiveness from God and others, and changing our actions to achieve that forgiveness.

Sometimes we need to look in the mirror, as we hope that message impacts ourselves as well.

GMAR CHATIMAH TOVAH TO ALL

Tribute to #1 Partner in Creation

Rosh Hashana and a Plea for Daily Minyan

by Rabbi Avi Billet

            

The Talmud in Niddah (31a) records that there are three partners in the creation of every human being: the Holy One, a father and a mother. It is to these three partners that each of us owes our very existence. [Though here is quite an interesting twist on the "3 partners idea"]

Scientific advancement has allowed the process to include what some might call an "assist" to go to medical professionals. But the genetic makeup of every human being comes from one male and one female, while the process that makes it all come together and form a human being is God's contribution to the effort.

On Rosh Hashana, we utilize a term that is reminiscent of this process when we declare "Hayom Harat Olam," that today is the day of the world's birth (or, more accurately, its conception). Particularly on this day, we are very cognizant of God's role in the existence of every life form on our planet. We appreciate that the day of Rosh Hashana is the Day of Judgment for the entire world. And, perhaps on account of this, so many Jews make a concerted effort to be in the synagogue to note our collective recognition of God's role in our existence and in the continued existence of the world.

Many synagogues like to tout their membership numbers. Depending on a particular community's unique makeup, the "active membership" number is not always in sync with the "complete membership" figures. "Inactive members" are generally people who feel a kinship of some kind to the synagogue, most likely show up on the high holidays, but otherwise are less involved in the weekly shul activities.

"Active membership" is usually defined as those who show up on a weekly basis, on Shabbat. But even the "active membership" numbers do not translate even closely to the much fewer numbers that show up on a daily basis.

It is understood that Shabbat is a day when entire families come to the synagogue. We aren't working, school is off, and where else does one need to be?

But even if the weekday is not a family day in the synagogue, where are all the people – the active members?

Every shul has its dedicated members who do show up on a daily basis. Year in and year out, their shul attendance, with the exception of vacations and sick days, is in the 90 percent range.

But many "active members" do not show up during the week. Many active members only become daily active members, ironically, when they are in mourning for the loss of two of the three partners in their own creation.

How many people are very dedicated and "never miss" a day during the year of mourning, but as soon as the year of mourning ends, they are never seen in the synagogue during the week? We give homage to the invisible partner in our creation during the year we remember our no longer visible creation-partners.

And yet, we can't give that same homage on a regular basis when our parents are alive, or even worse, after we have demonstrated for a year that "this is important to us" and "we can make the time to be in the synagogue out of a sense of responsibility"? How can this be?

As we come to the synagogue on Rosh Hashana, let us take into account that the synagogue is open 365 days a year. Let us commit to being active members not just on the High Holidays, not just on Shabbat, but also during the week.

While some get the drive to come back to the synagogue when they are in mourning, let us merit to come to the synagogue without the mourning incentive, as a tribute to our third partner in creation (who is listed as #1 in the Talmud!), because it is on His account that we live and breathe every day.