Adath Israel San Francisco | Modern Orthodox Synagogue in San Francisco | A Welcoming Shul and Jewish Community

Times are a Changing...

As you know, this coming Sunday morning at 2 a.m., we will be switching from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time. What you might not realize is that the time change impacts our Shabbat morning schedule for the month of November. Until this week, we were able to begin services at 9:30 a.m. However, for the next month we must begin at 9:15 a.m.

Allow me to explain. When the daily morning service was instituted (just a few thousand years ago), it came with a sunup-based timeline. This means that the morning Shema and Amidah need to be completed within several “halachic hours” from sunup. A halachic hour is determined by dividing the total amount of daylight by twelve. Therefore, in the winter a halachic hour could be as short as 48 minutes and, in the summer, it could be as long as 74 minutes.

For example, if sunup this coming Shabbat is at 7:37a.m. and sundown is at 6:09 p.m., that means there will be 10 hours, and 32 minutes of daylight. By converting that into minutes (10x60+32) and then dividing by 12 you get a 0:52.66 - halachic hour. According to this calculation, the Shema (which needs to be recited before the end of the third halachic hour of the day) should be finished by 10:14 a.m. The Amidah (which needs to be said by the end of the fourth halachic hour) should be finished by 11:07 a.m. Next week everything will be an hour earlier. 

Optimally, a synagogues’ service times should be in sync with the halachic hour system and allow for the Amidah to be recited right after the Shema. Here in San Francisco, that would require starting Shacharit on Shabbat at 8:30 a.m. However, there is a long-standing custom in many shuls for people to recite the Shema (in its proper time framework) independently before the beginning of the service. Though this custom is not optimal - it works. Adath Israel has historically followed this custom, and therefore, in order to at least recite the Amidah within its proper time framework, the Shabbat morning service during November will begin at 9:15 a.m.

Now to the parasha.

Before an election, neighborhoods are often flooded with signs supporting candidates running for all levels of government. When you went to vote in the past, you probably saw many of these signs strategically placed so that voters can see them, but far enough to observe the rules against electioneering at the polls. 

One has to wonder: do people really make a decision based on lawn signs? If someone is choosing between two town controllers that he/she knows nothing about, will the sign be the deciding factor? 

An article from a few years ago tells us that the answer is yes. Perhaps not too many people do this, but enough people to swing a tight race do. They point to a 2011 study called the “Ben Griffin Experiment” where lawn signs were placed all around town advocating for Ben Griffin to gain a seat on the local school board. The only problem was that Ben Griffin didn’t exist. The researchers then sent out surveys to parents asking who they support for the school board, and the list included five real candidates plus Ben Griffin. Sure enough, 25% of respondents chose Griffin among their top three picks. In politics, name recognition alone can be a factor.

In this week’s Parasha after Avraham saved his nephew Lot along with all the other residents of Sodom, the King of Sodom says to him, “Give me the people and take the possessions for yourself.”

Since we are talking about a king of a nation that epitomizes corruption, one would think that when faced with the situation he was in, he would abandon the people and try to get as much money as he can for himself. Yet, he seemed to take the approach that a righteous king would take, to worry about the people and not worry about the money. 

The Midrash Lekach Tov (11th century) provides the following insight. The King of Sodom was just as corrupt as his people. The only difference is that he was also a politician, and when you mix politics and corruption, the priorities are different. He would have loved to line his pockets, but there’s one thing that’s more important to a corrupt politician than money — power. 

If the king had no followers, what would be the point of being king? So, he tried to cut a deal with Avraham. The midrash points out that he misjudged Avraham, thinking that Avraham’s values were like the people of Sodom. Avraham must have only got involved in this war because his nephew was captured and now that it’s over, who wouldn’t be happy walking away with the cash? It seemed like a win-win. The king becomes the hero who saved his people and Avraham gets the money. 

In the end, the king gets more than he bargained for and he gets to keep the people and the money 

(according to Rav Yochanan in the Talmud, (Nedarim 32a), Avraham was punished for giving the people to the king rather than trying to bring them closer to HaShem). The king had one goal in mind in this exchange- to build his brand and make a greater name for himself.

By contrast, G-d at the beginning of the parasha promised Avraham that his name will be made great. What does that mean to someone like Avraham? Radak (R. David Kimchi 12th/13th cent.) writes: Avraham wasn’t looking to build a name for himself. The beracha G-d gave him was to have a reputation of being a Prince of G-d (Nesi Elokim) and his success comes from the fact that he is an ambassador of HaShem.

The people of Sodom may not have appreciated Avraham’s righteousness in refusing the spoils of war, but Avraham’s reputation as an ethical person only helped his cause in bringing people closer to G-d.

For Avraham, building a good name was a tool (or even a necessary evil) to help achieve his mission. For the king of Sodom, building a name was the mission. Politics these days are complicated. Every politician will say that they put the interests of their constituency ahead of their own. And while some may come across as more sincere than others, even if the candidate is sincere, his/her definition of “best interests of the community” may be very different or even antithetical to what we believe. Through all the haze of bitter politics and nasty rhetoric, we shouldn’t lose sight of what an ideal leader should be. The ideal leader, whether in the community or even leading our own home, should be a student of Avraham. Someone who is not looking to build a name but rather to be a good person, looking out for the welfare of others and leading by example.