Can The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good?

Consider the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. As any fair-minded observer will tell you, it’s a labyrinth of impenetrable and convoluted regulations. Just how did this bewildering and cumbersome monstrosity come into being? I can think of two causes.

The first is this: the Democrats had quite a year in 2008. They controlled the Executive branch, the House of Representatives, and most importantly, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. For over a generation, they had been dreaming about bringing healthcare to the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning for coverage. If the Democrats were going to deliver on this, there would never be a better time.

We then witnessed discussions about public options, cornhusker rebates, death panels, death spirals, and all sorts of histrionics until a bill was able to pass both houses of Congress. There was a plan to iron out details before the final passage, which is not unusual. Before this could happen, Ted Kennedy died, and the radical left-wing lunatics lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The big fucking deal was signed into law with all those loose ends.

To get to the second cause, let’s go back to the 2016 presidential election. One of the candidates described Obamacare as a mess, and claimed he could fix it all in a day – a piece of hamantaschen! When he was elected and became responsible for delivering, he took another look and said – and I believe this is a direct quote: “Nobody knew health insurance was this complicated!”

I’m not looking to dwell on Carthage right now, but quick show of hands: did anyone here know that health insurance was complicated? No matter, I want to give Liddle Donny his due: like immigration, reproductive care, and so much else in life, health insurance is complicated. It certainly can’t be addressed with pithy slogans like “Build The Wall!”, “Choose Life!”, and “Repeal and Replace!”

If starting from scratch, no one would ever design a system like Obamacare. It would be much simpler to go with something like Single Payer, aka Medicare For All. But how to get there starting in 2008? Many problems needed fixing, such as the record number of uninsured, pre-existing conditions, and lifetime caps. Nonetheless, there was much resistance to change, and I don’t just mean from the insurance companies. Most Americans were satisfied with the plans they got through their employers. Consequently, the ACA was designed as a “three-legged stool”: Medicaid expansion for the destitute, subsidies for folks not poor enough for Medicaid, and the dreaded, freedom killing individual mandate. For those who didn’t follow the wonkfest closely enough, the mandate was put in place to prevent people from waiting to be sick before paying into the system. You know, those nasty free riders the Heritage Foundation used to complain about.

For what it’s worth, I supported Obamacare then and still do, but that is not the point I’m trying to make. As the ACA was making its way into law, some on the left were sitting on their hands, holding out for Single Payer. I’m looking at you, Senator “Feel-The-Bern” Sanders and you too, Congressman “Feel-The-Den” Kucinich. When the chips were down, push came to shove, and tefillin was being wrapped, Barak Hussein Obama cried out in the wilderness: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Ranks were closed, I’s left undotted, T’s left uncrossed, and the monstrosity was signed into law.

Which all leaves me wondering, can the perfect be the enemy of the good? Before I delve into the Jewish aspects of this question, let’s look at Lyndon Johnson, who was instrumental in delivering some of biggest triumphs in US history – the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. In no other time or place was an oppressed minority granted such important steps towards equality, and in an overwhelmingly peaceful manner. You want to talk about American exceptionalism? That’s it, right there. Drop the mic.

There were some wrinkles. As President, Johnson pushed through laws that were considerably stronger than those he had opposed earlier as Senate Majority Leader. He felt that the country was not yet ready. But a lot changed by the time the fifties gave way to the sixties.

What can be said of Johnson’s judgement? Perfect? Good? None of the above? As a practical matter, he was right. The Dixiecrats were far too powerful during Johnson’s tenure in the Senate. We are frequently counselled to choose our fights. But does it end there? Ask the Bishop if his grandparents were okay with another decade or so in the back of the bus, drinking from colored water fountains, and that whole taxation without representation thing.

Still, coalitions have all sorts of interests and priorities, some of which might be in conflict. Do we really want to risk losing a national election by fussing over some Jewish kids being roughed up in a playground? Don’t the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? With G-d’s help, I will never have to make that call myself.

Martin Luther King famously said: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I mean no disrespect to the great man, but that’s just not true. Rather, the arc of the moral universe bends this way, that way, and then the other. The real teeth of the Voting Rights Act was the requirement for federal pre-approval of changes to voting procedures in certain jurisdictions, primarily in the Deep South. This preclearance provision was repeatedly reenacted with nearly unanimous votes in the Senate but was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. Not activist at all! Think of it as an early victory in the war against DEI.

More recently, the current administration ended a consent decree enforcing integration in Louisiana schools. Some DOJ lawyer stated that the dismissal “corrects a historical wrong.” I always like to give Trump and his people the benefit of every doubt, but what historical wrong is being referred to here? Maybe something about destroying the South’s way of life?

What’s next? Repealing the Magna Carta?

We Jews are called upon to be a light unto nations. That certainly means striving for perfection in defense of any group being “othered”. Especially the ones in the most danger. Protect the dolls. And if I want to give each of my nieces 30 dolls, you’ll have to pry them out of their little cold dead hands.

When I was in my early twenties, I met a young Jewish woman who worked at my office. She was my first crush after graduating college. Alas, I was relegated to the friend zone.  It sucked to be me.

She and her siblings got a humanistic, secular Jewish education. At some point, her entire family decided that if they weren’t going to observe all Jewish laws and customs perfectly, they might as well not observe any at all. And they didn’t.

That sentiment doesn’t work for me. I certainly never heard that from any of the rabbis I’ve known. Rather, they would say that any step in the right direction is good. Give up shellfish, light a candle, maybe even go to shul occasionally. You know, the reward for performing a mitzvah is the chance to perform another mitzvah.

So I was puzzled when I discussed this with a strictly Orthodox friend, also in his twenties. He liked her attitude. More accurately, he respected her logic. As he saw it, all these variant movements were just winging it. And even though the Conservatives try to make decisions according to halacha, that was just a bunch of shoe horning. As in, will this muffler fit my car? If you’re going to cut yourself off, just cut yourself off and be done with it. No pretending. In this case, the good is the enemy of the perfect.

There is a biblical law I didn’t learn about until well into adulthood. Shatnez prohibits the use of fabric that mixes wool and linen. I doubt that my own wardrobe, such as it is, passes muster on this account. A black-hatted friend once told me about some suits he inherited from a relative who was not as strict. To be on the safe side, he had a tailor from his shul look at them. Some were okay, others needed a little work, but there were a few in which the materials were so intertwined as to be beyond repair. These were donated to Good Will, or some similar organization.

I respect my friend for the conscientious of his observance, but why did KBH insist on this? To be sure, we Jews can be particular about keeping things separate: light from darkness, Shabbat from the rest of the week, milk from meat, and of course, men from women. There might be something to that last bit: what decent woman would sit with men amongst all that hairiness and stink?

In any event, will the ladies kindly retreat behind the mechitza? And take your knitting with you!

Separation may be part of what lies behind shatnez, but there’s also this. There is a formula for incense that has such a perfect fragrance, it was restricted to ritual use only. Similarly, garments worn by the High Priest included mixtures of linen and wool. Considering the sanctity of the Temple service, shatnez might have been deemed too perfect for the mundanity of everyday wear.

This next story is fiction but makes a good point. I’m not sure if I read this in a Harlequin Romance or a Nancy Drew Mystery. There was a lovely Jewish girl name Rebecca, daughter of Abraham. She was her father’s only child, and he loved her beyond any description, especially after Rebecca’s mother died. Abraham did his best as a single parent. You can imagine how proud he was when Rebecca was asked to the senior prom by a fine young Jewish man. Like any good father, he wanted to get her a magnificent gown, something that would make her feel beautiful and special, because of course she was.

But this led to a problem. Any debutante looking to frock up to the nines would take her mother and sisters to help pick out the right ensemble. Unfortunately, Rebecca couldn’t do that, and her father had to step up to the plate. Alas, Abraham had no fashion sense whatsoever. Mind you, this was years before “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy.” Nor was he made of money. Still, he wanted Rebecca to be happy, and took her to Bergdorf Goodman, hoping for the best.

The first dress they looked at was a velvety satin. It was a cross between a polonaise gown and a chemise à la reine. It was accessorized with panniers and a gossamer chatelaine. Rebecca saw the dress, and behold, it was good. But not perfect.

The second dress was a pure silk mantua and came with a reticule, a fichu, and a diaphanous tucker. Rebecca saw the dress, and behold, it was very good. But still not perfect.

The third dress was exquisite beyond words. It was a simple white linen garment with none of the formidable accoutrements that adorned the others, but was covered with the most fabulous, handcrafted embroidery imaginable. There were flowers, gemstones, stars, and right at the center, the young shepherdess embracing her lover, straight out of the Song of Songs. Rebecca saw the dress, and behold, it was perfect!

Abraham figured that he would need to put off retirement for a few years, but it wasn’t even a close call.

On prom night, the Rebbetzin, who was a close friend, came to see Rebecca in all her splendor. But the Rebbetzin took one look, did a double take, and exclaimed “Rebecca, take that off immediately!”

Father and daughter were stunned. What could possibly be so wrong?

The beautiful designs that made the linen dress so magnificent were all made with wool. The gown was forbidden shatnez.

Rebecca’s other formal dress was dingey and ill-fitting, but it would have to do. As you might imagine, she was devastated. From then on, it was all downhill. Her dreams were shattered, her life spiraled out of control, and the poor girl ended up with the worst fate imaginable. She became an old maid. In this case, the perfect really was the enemy of the good.

Of course, I made this all up. But in these days of willful ignorance, that doesn’t make it any less true.

There is another separation that we Jews need to watch out for: that between us and the nations. Gentiles have frequently resented Jewish resistance to assimilation. But then, some of the most dangerous times for Jews have been when we’ve gotten a bit too assimilated. As my zeder used to say: “If it’s good for the Jews, it’s bad for the Jews.”

The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said that apartheid got its start in ancient times at Solomon’s Temple, where certain areas were restricted to the Children of Israel. Horse hockey! In our shul, only Jews may participate fully in services, but all are welcome. This is no different than a Protestant singing along with the congregation at a Catholic church but being denied Communion.

But there are other examples that might seem strange to the uninitiated. Here’s one: don’t ever let anyone but a Jew pour wine for you. Is there a concern about cooties? Not at all! It’s just that a goy might try to sneak in some gentile benediction when no one’s looking. You wouldn’t want to recite kiddush over that, would you?

An Orthodox friend once told me this serves as an additional fence around Torah. You know, first one of them pours a drink for you, then you’re drinking with them, and it’s a hop, skip, and a jump to apostasy from there. I shudder to think.

There’s something similar – Chalav Yisroel, or Jewish milk. As per Wikipedia, this “refers to kosher milk whose milking was observed by an observant Jew. The takkanah of Chalav Yisroel, which originates in the Mishnah and Talmud, was instituted due to a concern that a non-Jew might mix milk of a non-kosher animal with the milk of a kosher animal.” I’m not sure how widely this restriction is observed in the United States, but it does seem to be catching on in some traditional communities.

I once asked a Conservative rabbi about this, and he just shook his head. He said that they were making it too hard to be kosher. We could just rely on the FDA to ensure that we were getting unadulterated cow’s milk. He once made these points to an Orthodox rabbi, who thought it was just dandy more Jews were being more careful about halacha.

Of course, that was then. The Department of Governmental Efficiency has directed the FDA to cut down on its milk testing, so who knows what we’re getting now? I have no idea where this fits on the overall good versus perfect business.

Many of us have patronized Deli King in Clark, where it’s love at first bite. Towards the end of his life, it was my honor to drive its longtime proprietor home from Sunday minyan. Dick Lavroff was a fine man, and if you never met him, you are worse off for it. A few decades ago, some Yid walked into his establishment, and in what seems like a Project Veritas sting operation, asked one of the staff whether the cookies were pareve. I’m sure they were, but the gentile behind the counter had no idea what he was talking about. At which point, the Yid started kicking up a big fuss. This being America, his organization sued Deli King.

Deli King has its rabbinical certifications hanging up right by the front door. The place is not Shomer Shabbos, Glatt Kosher, or Hashgacha Timidi. Individual Jews can decide for themselves whether this is good enough. But these guys felt that Dick was not perfect enough even to use the word “kosher”. I don’t know all the details of the lawsuit, but Deli King prevailed thanks to the First Amendment. I’m not fluent in Yiddish and I don’t always use this word, but going after my friend Dick was a shanda.

When it comes to things like Chalav Yisroel or Hashgacha Timidi, a particularly jaded friend of mine would describe these as bribes for the rabbis. That might be funny, but it’s also an oversimplification. There are some ostensibly religious decisions which seem to have economic and political underpinnings. But for most of the Orthodox world, Hebrew National is treif. If our cousins want to pay more for food they feel is appropriately certified, it’s not any money out of my pocket.

While our president is waiting to get his face chiseled into Mount Rushmore, he’s been busy recreating the White House in his own image. In addition to paving the rose garden and planting a MAGAnolia to replace Andrew Jackson’s, Trump is designing a “Garden of Heroes” with statues of great Americans. Considering how out of style wokeness is, it’s natural to expect a bunch of white men like Father Coughlin, Al Capone, and Hannibal Lecter. Imagine my surprise when I noticed a woman among the luminaries, and a Jewish woman at that: Hannah Arendt.

Her work can be quite compelling, even if I have trouble following some of it. After witnessing the Eichmann trial, she coined the chilling phrase “banality of evil”. She also came out with an observation that brought on a torrent of criticism, including from her friend Gershom Scholem. Here’s what she said:

“Wherever Jews lived, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership, almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another, for one reason or another, with the Nazis. The whole truth was that if the Jewish people had really been unorganized and leaderless, there would have been chaos and plenty of misery, but the total number of victims would hardly have been between four and a half and six million people.”

In all fairness, she might not have been blaming the victims as much as describing the mechanics of the Holocaust. At best, her words were tone deaf. The Jewish Councils were certainly part of the process through which millions of victims were herded into the death camps. But what can be said about those involved?

In “Mein Kampf”, which every Jew should read, Hitler did hint at plans for mass murder. Discussing the First World War, he wrote:

“If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.”

His commitment to racism was quite sincere, as was his willingness to employ any means to achieve his goals. Even after Kristallnacht, the world was largely blind to what was happening. Considering the White House’s support for the very fine people of the Alternative for Germany, future scholars may say something similar about us.

But the Shoah was not inevitable, and there were many occasions when Hitler could have been stopped or at least opposed more effectively. This might be apocryphal, but a history teacher once told me that when the Rhineland was remilitarized in 1936, the German generals were so worried about provoking the French that they planned to depose Hitler if they met any resistance whatsoever. And in William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, he writes that after the allies sold out Ukraine at Munich – sorry, wrong war - after the allies sold out Czechoslovakia at Munich, the Germans were quite surprised at the strength of the defenses along the Czech border. The Wehrmacht would still have prevailed in the event of an invasion, but only after considerable losses. If the reaction to Hitler had been less accommodating and a bit more perfect, a lot of pain would have been avoided.

And could the Jews have foreseen what was coming? There have been many massacres of Jews throughout history, but nothing like the industrialized genocide of the Holocaust. It might seem incomprehensible to us, but many of our ancestors survived by keeping their heads down and waiting for better times. If you read historical novels like Leon Uris’s “Mila 18” and John Hersey’s “The Wall”, you might conclude that Jews were doing just that before throwing themselves into the Warsaw Uprising. First-hand accounts like Emmanuel Ringelblum’s “Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto” and Chaim Kaplan’s “Scroll of Agony” present a less sanitized view of the chaotic times.

The Judenrat, or Jewish Councils, were formed from existing institutions and served as liaisons with the occupation authorities. They were responsible for carrying out Nazi directives. It also fell to them to provide for food distribution, sanitation, medical care, housing, and whatever else it took to survive in the ghettos. Most Jews thought of nothing beyond saving their own lives and those of their families. Other Jews took advantage of the situation to get rich. Still others insisted on perfect resistance, in whatever form it took.

The Judenrat would have opposed any violent confrontation to the Nazis. They feared for their own lives, but there was also the certainty of deadly retribution to the wider population. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that they were all doomed anyway. But although there were many rumors of extermination camps, the ghetto inmate had nothing like perfect knowledge.

The Torah records that Noah was “blameless in his age.” Perhaps he was not especially righteous but was extraordinary when compared to the evil around him. Does this mean we should view people considering the context of their time?

Of course we should! But let’s not go overboard. What about the folks who stoned adulterers and burned witches without giving it a second thought? Do we give them a pass because they didn’t know any better?

When I talk about Adam Czerniaków, who led the Jewish Council of the Warsaw Ghetto, I have no problem adding “may his memory be for a blessing.” He might not have been blameless in his age, but he was certainly good for his time. I am hardly an expert, but he seems to have struggled for Jewish welfare, only to commit suicide rather than preside over the deportations.

I wouldn’t say the same for Chaim Rumkowski, who was the “Elder of the Jews” in Lodz. He had a reputation for authoritarian leadership. An unsubstantiated claim, almost certainly false, relates that he insisted on and received a private train car for the trip to Auschwitz. There are also accounts that he was recognized and killed by fellow Jews once he got to the death camp. These stories suggest that his contemporaries held him in low regard.

I’d like to think that my own behavior would have been good, if not perfect, had I been trapped in one of the ghettos. But I wasn’t there, and in the remarkable words of the recently deceased Pope Francis, who am I to judge?

I love Israel and hope that the country survives in security and peace. Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. After the October 7th attack and before any response by the Israelis, Hamas sympathizers were already claiming that whatever came next was the Jews’ fault. You know: the same old same old. One protestor explained that the slogan “From the river to the sea…” was not genocidal. That’s eyepoppingly ridiculous, but she is beyond my powers of persuasion.

Why am I saying all this? I know that I’m preaching to the choir, but I feel a need to shore up my Zionist credentials. I might be about to deviate from someone’s perfect party line, and I’d rather not be labeled a traitor. Of course, the folks wearing the red MAGA yarmulkes already think I’m Self-hating Jew, but they are also beyond my powers of persuasion.

In 1922, Transjordan was removed from the Palestine Mandate. The remaining territory, which we might call Cisjordan, consists of what is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. In 1929, Ze’ev Jabotinsky of the Revisionist Zionist movement wrote the song “Shtei Gadot LaYarden”, the central refrain of which was “Two banks to the Jordan – this one is ours, that one as well.” Nearly a century later, some right-wing Israelis still sing it.

I suppose there is some historical basis to this. Two and a half tribes did settle to the east of the Promised Land. They almost got into a war with the rest of the Israelites, but cooler minds prevailed. In any event, this certainly plays up to perfect maximalist demands.

But some of our most important historical figures did not insist on such perfection. The prophet Jeremiah, whose speaking truth to power got him thrown into a pit, warned King Zedekiah against fighting the Babylonians. The advice was ignored, and the Captivity followed.

Centuries later, the Romans encircled Jerusalem, and the most powerful of the city’s defenders rejected any compromise with their enemies. I don’t know if they were looking for some cross between the Battle of Valhalla and the Branch Davidians of Waco or just expecting a miracle. But if it weren’t for Rabban Yohanan sneaking out and negotiating with the Romans for an academy at Yavneh, the Jewish people would likely have disappeared.

Before the War of Independence ended, the Israelis had the advantage. Some argued for the continuation of the war to capture Gaza, which would probably have been easy at the time. The ultimate effect this would have had is unknowable, but it would likely have prevented the many deadly incursions from Gaza that led to the next war. Ben Gurion decided, wisely in my view, to accept the armistice which cemented the reality of the Jewish state.

Our dear leader likes to boast that he was better for Israel than any other American president. He also takes credit for sunrise. I have nothing to say about the dawn, but clearly Richard Nixon eclipsed anything the Orange Moses ever did. After the initial attack in 1973, Israel was close to disaster. Thanks to the swift American airlift of supplies, Israel was able to counterattack, coming within shelling distance of Damascus and surrounding Egyptian forces in Sinai. Much of the Israeli military establishment wanted to deliver some well-deserved destruction, but Nixon and Kissinger discouraged this. The Israelis in fact gave up some territory – you know, from the victor comes the concessions. As inexplicable as this sounds, it led to the Camp David Accords. From then on, the Arabs could never destroy Israel. Only Israel can destroy Israel.

As an American Jew safe in an American living room, I have no criticisms of Israel’s conduct in this war. I’m not Bibi’s biggest fan, but I will not speculate about his motives. That’s just a distraction.

The hostages must be released, and Hamas must not be allowed to continue its rule of Gaza. Unfortunately, these goals conflict with one another. I’ve read that the Israelis are thinking about a counterinsurgency operation, like that employed by the United States to defeat ISIS in Iraq. That might be the only way, but any notion of moving Jewish population into Gaza is insane.

Trump wants to depopulate Gaza and turn it into Mar-a-Lago on the Mediterranean. I’m not sure how that would work, but if he offered green cards for any Gazan who wanted one, I would personally nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s true, the Israelis have no partner for peace, at least not one with the ability to deliver. And I have neither a good nor a perfect solution to offer up.

Much of Jewish observance does require perfection, and rightly so. For example, I’m sure all of you have heard my chanting Torah on Shabbat. I know, I know. Life changing, tears of ecstasy, visions of Elijah – I get that a lot. But if there is so much as a single smudged letter anywhere in the scroll, it can’t happen. Sure, I could read it out of a Chumash, and it would be good, but it wouldn’t be the same.

Can our religion be practiced a bit too perfectly? Surely, the devotion, or obsession, with Talmudic legalism helped spur both the Chassidic and Haskalah movements. The Chassidim went mystical while the Maskilim went rational, and Jews being Jews, they couldn’t stand each other. They are both cherished parts of our history. And just like health insurance, nobody knew Judaism was this complicated!

There are those who go a bit overboard. Once an Orthodox friend assured me that he would never, ever step foot inside a Conservative shul. That’s fine: he can pray wherever he likes to, just like me. But he was too happy telling me that.

I do resent the ultra-Orthodox attempting to force their views of perfection on other Jews. That’s why I voted for Mercaz. I’m concerned about the abuse of women and children in some of these communities, as well as the banishing of dissenters and nonconformists. If someone reads the wrong book, has the wrong friends, or loves the wrong person, they can be ostracized from their own family. But that has more to do with insularity than Judaism. These problems occur in all sorts of isolated sects. It’s a good argument for building bridges instead of walls. Another tip of the hat to Pope Francis, he should rest in peace.

I went to Hebrew School at a Conservative shul, but all the teachers were Orthodox, as well as being snide, snickering, snarling snakes. They taught me a lot, but it left me a bit bruised. No doubt, the experience informed whatever biases I have.

One last example before I close, and I imagine you’ve all heard a version of it. I’ll be drawing on various rabbis, David Berg’s “My Friend G-d”, and I’ll add my own touches. To be perfectly clear, Chat was not involved.

The Almighty was looking for a nation to receive the Torah. First, He went to the Assyrians. Being practical, they wouldn’t take it sight unseen and wanted a preview. KBH obliged, telling them that the Torah was chock full of great commandments. The Assyrians still wouldn’t bite and asked for an example. And, still unperturbed, G-d offered this: “Thou shall not kill.” Stunned, the Assyrians replied: “Are You out of Your mind? We’ve got this whole military/industrial complex going on. We lay siege to cities, steal the supplies, enslave the men and women. Hard pass.”

The Almighty got a similar reaction from the Egyptians, except He led with a different commandment: “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” They wanted to know what that meant. KBH helpfully answered: “No work on Saturday.” Being gainfully retired myself and proud of my indolence, I would have assumed the Egyptians would like that. If I were among them, I would have asked that it be extended to the entire week. But that’s not how the Egyptians rolled: “We’re too busy building pyramids, canals, and all sorts of monuments. Your Torah just doesn’t work for us.

On to the Hittites: “Thou shall not commit adultery.” They met this with a blank stare: “What’s adultery?” The Almighty explained: “It’s from one of several commandments that restrict promiscuity and promote sexual probity.” And you can guess what they made of that: “Are you kidding? We just got this new cult prostitute who loves her job and is smoking hot.” Enough said.

But what did the children of Israel say? “We will do, and we will hear!” It’s a classic. As awesome as that was, it was not quite enough for the Almighty: “That’s good, but it’s not perfect. You really need to spend all your time studying My Law.”

Now, the Israelites were not put off, but they couldn’t reconcile 24/7 studying with making a living. They asked: “How about we commit to an hour a day? As Karl Marx will someday say: ‘A man must eat before he philosophizes.’” Although the Almighty agreed that any amount of study is good, it still wasn’t enough.

Jacob’s progeny countered with this: “Let’s say we have our parents do the studying? They’ve supported us their entire lives, and they would love the opportunity.” Again, good but still short of perfect.

Finally, our ancestors said: “You know what, we’ll put our children to the task. No matter how much they complain, we’ll send them to cheder, yeshiva, or just plain old Hebrew School. We’ll take them to seders, megillah readings, sukkahs, and whatever else it takes to teach them to be Jewish.”

The Almighty paused, strictly for effect, and said: “That’s good enough. I guess a half a challah is better than none.”

Except, KBH is way smarter than we are. That was the perfection He wanted all along.

You might think that what comes next should be familiar to anyone who’s followed my various ramblings. I posed a question: “Can the perfect be the enemy of the good?” Now, after spouting off a bunch of nonsense, this is where I typically say something like: “Gee whiz, guys! You can’t expect an answer from me!” Well, in my defense, the learned scholar of my acquaintance who asked me to do these talks never said anything about making sense or even having a point. But, in this case, the answer is obvious: the perfect can be the enemy of the good. However, it’s not the question that we should address. This is: exactly when is the perfect the enemy of the good? Which brings us to a place which will surprise no one – I haven’t a clue. The dybbuk is in the details.

Now, go and study.