Avraham, Lot & the Election

The day after an election can be a fraught time.

There are winners and losers. That’s the nature of an election. In recent elections, as the temperature and tone have risen, the “day after” has been particularly tense. This year is no exception, and emotions have ranged from elation to devastation to everything in between.

One synagogue sat shiva.

That was the headline for an article about a gathering in Manhattan billed as “A Time of Prayer for the Neshamah [Soul] of Our Nation.” The mood was pretty grim. “We’re sitting shiva,” the rabbi told the approximately 100 participants.

Some Jews celebrated.

Participants in a Manhattan office Mincha minyan were greeted with chocolate cake with “Trump” written on it in white frosting. One posted on X, “It felt weird saying tachanun [penitential prayer skipped on festive occasions] given the jubilant mood.”

While I rarely say no to cake, neither of the above reactions resonates with me. I appreciated the line a colleague posted: It's neither time for mourning nor for the celebration of Moshiach’s arrival.

In the Jewish community, it is even more important to remember we’re all on the same side – regardless of how vehemently we disagree or how we reacted to Donald Trump’s victory. We can analyze forever how good/bad each candidate is and how/why they lost. That’s important. More important is to recognize we are all Jews. As one Jewish communal leader put it, “We don't have time for disunity. We don't have time for a postelection period to further divide us.”

How can we move forward when there is so much dividing us? Is there really unity when some Jews are sitting shiva while other Jews eat cake?

Let’s look at Avraham and Lot.

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik sees an important communal lesson in how Avraham and Lot parted ways. (Abraham’s Journey, pp. 122-125)

Avraham was extraordinarily dedicated to his nephew, Lot. He essentially adopted him, and, for a time, it even looked as if Lot could be his heir. As both men prospered, a rift emerged.

“There was riv, controversy, between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle" (Gen. 13:7).

Avraham tries to contain the damage. “Abram said to Lot: Let there be no merivah, strife, I beg you, between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, ki anashim achim anachnu, for we are brothers" (Gen. 13:8).

There was a riv, controversy between the shepherds. They had a dispute, an argument. Avraham wants to make sure this does not turn into a merivah, a full-blown rift between himself and Lot as they are kinsmen. It is one thing to argue, but it is entirely unacceptable for family to fracture. Riv “does not mean that the people hate or resent each other; even two friends can litigate. Merivah, however, means hatred, resentment, complete alienation.”

Ultimately, Avraham suggests that they separate. “If you will go left, then I will go to the right; or if you depart to the right, then I will go to the left” (Gen. 13:9). If they remain together, the relationship could devolve further, and the disagreement grow and be more public. Nevertheless, Avraham is never far away, and he immediately leaps into action to save Lot when he is taken captive. Ki anashim achim anchnu.

I find it very telling and timely that Avraham and Lot separate based on going left or right. That split exists today. We find ourselves very divided on a host of issues. Like Avraham, we should distance ourselves from the disagreements that may lead to full-blown fracture. Regardless of who we voted for or which party we support, we can’t let that riv turn into merivah. We can talk about politics less – especially with others who we know do not share our views. We cannot allow politics to create permanent alienation. As with Avraham and Lot, we must always be there to support our fellow Jew.

After an election, both the winners and losers should get back to making our world a better place to live for everyone. We should absolutely remain committed to our principles and our candidates. At the same time, we all win when we remember there is another side. We win when we tune out the noise and the anger and the disappointment. We win when we want the best for ourselves as well as for those with whom we disagree. We win when we prevent riv from becoming merivah.

Ki anashim achim anachnu – for we are all brothers and sisters.

Visiting the Shiva Two by Two

Is there anyone who can bring politicians of different parties, bitter rivals who can’t seem to agree on anything, together?

It seems like Rachel Goldberg can.

Rachel is the widow of IDF Captain Rabbi Avi Goldberg, 43, who was killed in action last Saturday night. “Rav Avi” was a beloved teacher at the Himmelfarb Yeshiva High School in Jerusalem and leaves behind 8 children - Yehudah, Shira, Talia, Hadas, Eliyashiv, Hallel, Reut, and Naveh. Since October 7, he spent over 250 days in the IDF reserves. Rachel Sharansky Danziger wrote a moving tribute to her friend and neighbor, who was known for his open home, warm personality, and willingness to engage all Jews.

“Rav Avi looked at the world with so much clarity, so much love for the Jewish people and humanity…Twenty years ago, Rav Avi began organizing and leading Yom Kippur prayers at the secular kibbutz Ginosar. For many members of the kibbutz, he was the first religious person they had ever gotten to know. Despite his beard, his large kipah, and his unwavering belief in Torah and Jewish law, he broke through every barrier and preconception against him that might have prevented his welcome, thanks to his warmth, humility, and ‘maor panim’ — his inner light.”

Rachel, a nurse, was Rav Avi’s partner in everything he did. It is, therefore, no surprise that she demanded unity from those who wanted to make a shiva visit to console the family. A statement released by the family noted:

“At a time when the rifts in Israeli society are growing, it is important for us to underline the value of unity…The family welcomes politicians from all camps to our shiva. But we ask that you come together in pairs - one from the coalition and one from the opposition…Rabbi Avi, together with his wife Rachel, dedicated his life and invested much time and work to connect between parts of Israeli society. This is the proper way to part from him and accompany him on his final journey.”

Several lawmakers heeded the family’s call. Photos circulating on social media Tuesday showed lawmakers from five different parties – Likud, National Unity, Otzma Yehudit, Shas, and Yesh Atid - making a shiva visit together. Separately, National Unity MK Matan Kahana also visited with Shas MK Erez Malul.

We need more breaking of barriers, crossing of aisles, and pairing up of people with different perspectives.

There is so much toxic disagreement and delegitimization of people with opposing views today. We believe in machloket, honest disagreement. (After all, two Jews must yield three opinions.) What we see all around us, however, is more like a need for uniformity. The problem is certainly exacerbated by the upcoming election. At the same time, the calls are growing louder from all sides that there is only one correct position. There is only one pro-Israel candidate. There is only one way for the economy to improve. There is only one way to view the strengths or weaknesses of particular politicians. I may very well feel that way but ignoring and completely discounting other voices is not the Torah way.

“Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words.” (Bereishit 11:1)

What was so wrong with the plan to make a name and build a tower? Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, the Netziv, explains it was the mindset of the Builders of Bavel that was so detrimental.

“The text did not explain what the people’s 'few words' were…[I]t wasn't because of the content of the words themselves that the Holy One of Blessing was distressed. They were what they were, and in its simplicity there is not sin, and on the contrary all appears well. But here what happened is that all thought the same thing, and this came to be the problem of the settlement.”

The problem with the Builders of Bavel was they were trying to construct a society built on absolute conformity, of people being required to think and act alike. It is one thing to have a common purpose or community standards. It is destructive, however, when the people demand absolute allegiance to a society of their own creation.

What was true then is still true today. We live in a world where, all too often, people want to live only with those who think, act, and speak alike. Everyone else is wrong.

Rabbi Marc Angel has written about the dangers of “echo reasoning,” when people only listen or speak to those with similar views. Members of the closed circle become more extreme, less able to reason independently or tolerate opposing views. There is nothing wrong with being confident in one’s own position. To be morally strong and intellectually sound, however, we need to be open to hearing criticism of our own views and listening to opinions different than our own.

We need to think; to challenge and be challenged; to express our views and listen to the views of others. Choose one issue about which you feel passionate and try to put yourself in the mindset of someone who would disagree. If you find yourself reacting negatively to a different point of view or an opponent’s behavior, stop and think why they may be acting that way instead of feeling angry and shouting them down.

Rachel Goldberg honored her late husband by asking us to pair up with those with whom we disagree. There will always be machloket, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find ways to bridge the divides and cultivate that which unites us. That’s what Rav Avi would do.