The tractate of the Talmud known as Pirkei Abot (“Ethics of the Fathers”), which we read, chapter by chapter, every Sabbath from Passover to Rosh Hashanah, begins with a famous passage which is the simplest statement of the source and authority of the whole Jewish tradition: משה קבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע, ויהושע לזקנים, וזקנים לנביאים, ונביאים מסרוה לאנשי כנסת הגדולה. If we read this passage carefully

In this morning’s Sidra the Torah presents us with its code of sexual morality, a code that has been accepted as a cornerstone of our Western civilization. However, despite the widespread acceptance in theory of the Torah’s moral code, statistics in recent years indicate that it is honored more in the breach than in the observance. Moral laxity and marital infidelity have become part of a matter-of-fact way of life, not only amongst the idols of the amusement world, but for an ever larger number of people. The most corrosive aspect of this situation is what it has done to the morale of those who are truly moral. Since they are in the minority, or a gradually diminishing majority, they tend to think that perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps unchastity is normal, and those who abstain are not normal. Maybe, as some statisticians have suggested, our whole moral code needs revamping. Since much of what has been previously condemned as immoral and degenerate is now widely practiced, perhaps they should no longer be regarded as wrong and reprehensible. It is against this devious kind of reasoning that the Torah, centuries ago, proclaimed in clear words, in its introduction to its moral code, the doctrine: ke’maasei eretz mitzrayim asher yeshavtem bah lo taasu, u-khe’maasei eretz kenaan asher ani mevi etkhem shamah lo taasu u-ve’chukotehem lo telekhu. “Like the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do; like the doings of the Land of Canaan, whither I am bringing you, shall you not do; neither shall you walk in their statutes.” What the Torah is saying is that what is being done – whether in Egypt or Canaan – is no guide for what should be done – whether in those places or anywhere else. A distinguished man of letters, Joseph Wood Krutch, has brilliantly analyzed the difference between the two concepts which are most pertinent to our discussions. They are, “average” and “normal.”A new phenomenon in our modern age – with its democratization, its penchant …

The Torah's moral code is the accepted cornerstone of Western civilization. Unfortunately, however, despite its widespread acceptance in theory, statistics in recent years indicate that it is honored more in the breach than in the observance. Moral laxity and marital infidelity have become part of a matter-of-fact way of life not only amongst the idols of the amusement world, but for an ever larger number of ordinary people. The most corrosive aspect of this situation is not what it does to those who do not care, but what it has done to the morale of those who are truly moral. Since they are in the minority, or a gradually diminishing majority, they tend to think that perhaps they are wrong. They are afflicted with self-doubt: perhaps unchastity is normal, and those who abstain are not normal. Maybe, as some statisticians have suggested, our whole moral code needs revamping. Since much of what has been previously condemned as immoral and degenerate is now widely practiced, perhaps they should no longer be regarded as wrong and reprehensible.It is against this devious kind of reasoning that the Torah, centuries ago, proclaimed in clear words, in its introduction to its moral code, the doctrine: "Like the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do; like the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I am bringing you, shall you not do; neither shall you walk in their statutes" (Lev. 18:3). What the Torah is saying is that what is being done – whether in Egypt or Canaan – is no guide for what should be done – whether in those places or London or New York or Tel Aviv or anywhere else. The “is” should not limit and determine the "ought."A distinguished American man of letters, Joseph Wood Krutch, has brilliantly analyzed our contemporary dilemma as a semantic obfuscation of two concepts which are most pertinent to our discussion. They are, "average'' and "normal."A new phenomenon in our modern age – with its democratization, its penchant for measuring a…

The problem of tradition vs. innovation is an ancient, complex, and yet ever-relevant one. The issue has never been fully resolved, and especially in Jewish life, we must face it again every generation. When does conformity with accepted custom shade off from cautious conservatism to a rigid reactionary stand? And when does the willingness to experiment move one from the ranks of the liberals to those of the radicals who are contemptuous of the inherited values of the past? When is submission to tradition an act of moral cowardice and an evasion of responsibility, a cop-out on independent thinking? And when is the desire for change a thoughtless lust for cheap sensationalism and a trivial thrill? These are questions of the greatest importance, and honorable men have and do differ about them. It would be foolish to attempt an exhaustive analysis of the point of view of Judaism on this question, but it is instructive to look for some insights from within the heritage of Judaism. A perusal of the first part of today's Sidra impresses us with the Torah's powerful insistence upon observing every jot and tittle of the tradition. Thus, the Yom Kippur service of the High Priest in the Temple is set forth in the greatest detail, with constant and reiterated warnings that the slightest deviation from the prescribed ritual is a disaster, that any change is calamitous. Clearly, the Bible holds tradition and custom in the highest esteem. And yet, here and there the Torah leaves us a hint which the Rabbis picked up on and expanded, in order to complete the total picture by supplementing this valuation of tradition with another point of view. Thus, after describing the high point of Yom Kippur, when the High Priest has performed the service in the inner sanctum, we read:ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד ופשט את בגדי הבד אשר לבש בבואו אל הקודש והניחם שם."and Aaron shall come to the Tent of Meeting and remove his linen garments which he wore when he came to the sanctuary, and he shall leave the…

This afternoon, we begin reading the tractate Avot. The very first Mishnah introduces us to the שלשלת המסורה, the chain of Tradition: משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע – “Moses received the Torah at Sinai, and gave it over to Joshua.” Now, this is somewhat puzzling. Why did the Sages choose this particular tractate as the one to introduce with the chain of Tradition? The answer offered by Rabbi Ovadiah Bartenora and others is that the other tractates are all halakhic, legal. This tractate is fundamentally that of מוסר – morals and ethics. Now, it is obvious – if one does not delude himself, and despite the futile efforts to do so by certain movements in Jewish life – that הלכה is meaningful only if it is rooted in Tradition, in divine authority. For the הלכה to survive 2000 years of Jewish exile, when we had no police force and very few means of coercion, it had to be subscribed to on the basis of its authority: the authority of Sinai. Otherwise, it would be like playing a game where you make up your own rules as you go on.  However, Avot is all מוסר. It is constituted largely of private dicta, such as הוא היה אומר – “he used to say” – and one might therefore assume that it is highly individualistic: all subjective and a product of personal imagination, sentiments, and ideas; that הלכה is “hard,” and מוסר is “soft.”  Thus, one might conclude – as did many 19th-century philosophers – that ethics is separate from religion, that the two are divorced from each other.  Hence, we begin this particular tractate with the account of the origin of Tradition: משה קיבל תורה מסיני. Ethics, like law, derives from a divine sanction. Morality, no less than הלכה, is firm, fixed, not subject to human whim. Both מוסר and הלכה have their roots in מסורה.  The word מוסר is not grammatically related to מסורה, but the fact that they sound alike points to a conceptual continuity between them: מוסר too has a sacred מסורה – tradition; it derives from מסיני.  Our sidra this morning mentions th…