 |
| Self righteous and occupying the "moral high" ground, or at least positioning oneself to appear to be good one |
One of Orthodox Judaism’s most prominent religious
authorities was deeply distrustful of Christian intentions in initiating
Interfaith dialogue[1]. He was
concerned that it was a plot to convert Jews, a proposition based on
generations of bad blood, but one that would be discredited by the evidence of the
following fifty years of dialogue. Trust between Jews and Muslims can be
particularly difficult to achieve but with many notable exceptions such as my
own experience in Together For Humanity[2],
and projects such as JCMA[3],
Project Abraham[4], the Three
Faiths Forum[5] and
Jihadi Jew[6].
Another set of relationships that can be difficult revolve
around work. In both inter-religious and work relationships one of the
destructive dynamics is the attempt by one party or both trying to position
themselves as “the good one”, and the other as “the bad one”. Once I became
aware of this dynamic, watching people engage it makes me want to scream. This
is a discussion about how trust and honour are earned and given, or lost and
withdrawn.
Clear as Mud
Some people like to combine a game of positioning themselves
as virtuous, with also keeping things as vague as they can, to maximize their
own options later. An example of this
double whammy is when Jacob proposes the payment for his work for Laban, he does
so in a manner that has become the standard expression for clarity still in use
among religious Jews today, בְּרָחֵל
בִּתְּךָ הַקְּטַנָּה. He agrees to
work for seven years “for Rachel, your daughter, the younger one[7]”.
The decent response to that proposal would be an equally clear confirmation
that the terms were either acceptable or not. Instead Laban offers a dishonest[8],
“shifty, vague and ambiguous[9]”
response with this self glorifying statement “"It is better that I give
her to you than I should give her to another man. Stay with me[10]".
‘Trust me’, he seems to say brazenly when he is the last person with the right
to demand trust.
Vague Language
A Laban type response is particularly frustrating if one is
already concerned about the honesty of the other party or whether their
expectations will be realised in the end, as Jacob was[11]. Commentary[12]
suggests that Laban had already decided then to give Jacob his daughter Leah
instead of Jacob’s beloved Rachel. Craftily, he also uses the word “give” which
implies a gift to Jacob rather than an exchange and weakens Jacob’s position.
Then in the guise of wanting the pleasure of Jacob’s company he throws in a
clause “Stay with me” that will force Jacob to work under the watchful eyes
of Laban. Laban will later swindle
Jacob, by repeatedly changing the terms of the deal between them[13].
Over the years in my interfaith work, I have received some
meaningless vague big-picture-yes responses to interfaith cooperation that in
fact turned out to mean “I don’t have any
desire to be involved but I want to sound good, or maybe make you feel good so
I will imply a yes when the real answer is no”.
Brother in Scams?
A natural response to feeling cheated whether at work on in
the inter-group context is to respond in kind. My assumption would be that “two
wrongs don’t make a right” and that one should never cheat and that while it is
a better use of time to focus on sincere people, it is wrong to give up on
sincerity. I wonder what messages can be
found in the story of Jacob and Laban. The Talmud[14]
elaborates on Jacob’s comment to Rachel that he was her father’s
brother[15],
with the following exchange.
Jacob to Rachel: Mary me.
Rachel: Yes. But my father is a swindler and you
won’t be able to manage with him.
Jacob: I am his
brother in swindling[16]
Rachel: Is it allowed
for a Righteous person to engage in swindling?
Jacob: Yes, “with a pure one you show yourself pure;
but with the perverse one, you deal crookedly[17]”.
Implications of a Licence For the Low Road
One recent article, discusses the difference between Jacob’s
two names. It relates the name Jacob to his grabbing Esau’s heel during
their birth and represents “attacking at the heel; … to deal, sometimes,
deceitfully and surreptitiously”. It also makes a link to current
political realities, making the comment that “when we are surrounded by 140
million people wishing to destroy us, we cannot always go with the 'high-road'
behaviour. We have to come back to the practices of 'Jacob’[18]”.
I lack the expertise to comment on matters of defence and I do not presume to
give anyone advice about the Torah sanctioned right to self defence, yet this
type of interpretation is one that would make me and many other Jews both in Israel
Jacob’s Actions; a Licence?
A simple reading of the text might yield the conclusion that
Jacob carried out his threat to be Laban’s brother in deception. Consider how
he creatively implements a profit sharing agreement with Laban. The deal was
that Jacob would remove all the speckled and spotted goats and all the brown
sheep, then any animals that will be born with these characteristics will
belong to Jacob[19].
Jacob then puts spotted or brown sticks in front of the animals when they are
in heat, this tactic results in many goats and sheep being born with the
appearances that lands them in Jacob’s possession.
Interpretations of Sticks as Evidence against Defrauding
Fraudsters
Commentaries seek to justify Jacob’s action. The simplest is
that the sticks method of genetic modification does not work, and the result
was due to divine intervention[20].
Another view is that there was a condition in the agreement with Laban that
allowed Jacob to use the sticks and he had his permission[21].
Alternatively, Jacob only used this practice after some goats were born with the spots without intervention. He was concerned that these goats would have offspring without spots that would rightfully belong to him, but Laban would claim them because they have no spots. He used the sticks only for his legitimately earned spotted goats[22].
One can argue about the plausibility of these justifications, but that is less important than the implication that it would have been wrong for Jacob to rob Laban, even though Laban was a thief. There are other interpretations that might not support this approach[23]. Perhaps the most compelling point is Jacob’s assertion that he served Laban loyally with all his strength[24], working and be consumed by scorching heat during the day and frost by night[25].
Alternatively, Jacob only used this practice after some goats were born with the spots without intervention. He was concerned that these goats would have offspring without spots that would rightfully belong to him, but Laban would claim them because they have no spots. He used the sticks only for his legitimately earned spotted goats[22].
One can argue about the plausibility of these justifications, but that is less important than the implication that it would have been wrong for Jacob to rob Laban, even though Laban was a thief. There are other interpretations that might not support this approach[23]. Perhaps the most compelling point is Jacob’s assertion that he served Laban loyally with all his strength[24], working and be consumed by scorching heat during the day and frost by night[25].
The Face Game
Laban works relentlessly on putting Jacob down in comparison
to his righteous self. When he first invites him to stay he declares but
you are my brother. The word “but” is interpreted as “you have been
distanced from all your relatives because of your deceiving your brother twice
but you are my relative and I won’t distance you[26]” (because
I am so good of course). When Jacob finally escapes from the toxic situation
with Laban, Laban pursues him and offers this gem. “What have you done?! you
lead my daughters like captives of the sword…why didn’t you tell me and I would
send you away with songs, drums and the lyre. You didn’t let me kiss my sons
and daughters, now you have done foolishly[27]”.
Laban then accuses Jacob of stealing his occult artefact
called the Teraphim[28].
Jacob explodes, after a fiery defence of his integrity he makes a curse for
anyone who stole Laban’s Teraphim. Unbeknown to him Rachel had stolen them[29]. Our
tradition teaches us that Jacob’s curse was realised[30]
when Rachel died a short time later at the age of 36[31]. While
her sin of stealing the Teraphim is said to have caused her not to be buried in
the cave of the righteous (in double cave in Hebron
Conclusion
Rather than using our energy convincing people that we are “the
good one”, we should just be good and let our behaviour and character speak
for itself. It is very sad that people so often demand trust when they don’t
deserve it. Perhaps we can resist judging people who like our prominent Rabbi
at the beginning of the post who might have heard or seen too much to be able
to trust again. Yet, we must thank God, there are not that many Laban’s around
and we should not assume that “they are all like that” or that the way things
were, is the way they still are. We must pick ourselves up after our trust has
been betrayed and trust all over again, albeit a bit more alert. There are many decent beautiful people in our
world of all faiths and skills sets, let us work with them.
[1] Feinstien,
R. Moshe, Igros Moshe, vol. 6, p 278, letter with a ruling dated February or
March 1967, Adar 1, 5727
[7] Genesis
29:18
[8] Targum
Yonatan Ben Uziel, adds the word “Rmiyu”, deception, to his translation
of “And Laban said” in verse 19.
[9]
Leibowitz, N, New Studies in Bereshit, p.321, Jewish Agency, Special Edition,
Lambda Publishers, Brookly New York
[10] Genesis
29:19
[11] Rashi
Genesis 29:18
[12] Ohr
Hachayim on Genesis 29:19
[13] Genesis
31:7
[14] Talmud
Megilah 13b
[15] Genesis
29:12
[16] Targum
Yonatan Ben Uziel has Jacob saying “I am a swindler, and clever, more that
he is is and he will have no permission/ability to do bad to me as the word of
God is in my assistance”
[17] Samuel
II, 22:27 , with slight variation
also in Psalms 18:27
[18] Frand,
Rabbi Y, http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5757/toldos.html
[19] Genesis
30:32
[20] Rabbi
Samson Raphael Hirsch
[21] Bchor
Shor, Ohr Zarua Hagadol, evidence for this proposition is the fact that Jacob
did this openly in full view of all the shepherds for six years where it would
have been impossible that it would not become known to Laban
[22] Radak
in the name of his father
[23] Daat
Zekainim Mbaalei Hatosafot and Ohr Hachayim both have explanations that involve
Laban violating the agreement which justifies Jacob taking counter-measures to
protect what was his, with the former referring to the phrase “with a pure
one you show yourself pure; but with the perverse one, you deal crookedly”.
[24] Genesis
31:6
[25] Genesis
31:39
[26]
Chizkuni
[27] Genesis
31:26-28
[28] Ibn
Ezra describes the Teraphim as being part of a practice in which a skull of a
first born would be used in magical practices
[29] Genesis
31:31-32
[30]
Beresheet Rabba 74, Rashi
[31] Seder
Olam (Order of the World) Chapter 2, an alternative view is that she was 45
(Sefer Hayashar, cited in Torah Shlaima)
[32] Midrash
Aseret Hadibrot 40, cited in Torah Shlaima vol 2, p1236
[33] Genesis
29:7-8
Um, Zalman, isn't this exactly what you're doing when you say "It drives me crazy to see people try to put their own group or themselves up by putting others down. "? : )
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. I think it is legitimate to put down certain behaviours like arrogance and to say that humility is superior to it. I am comfortable with someone saying "we are so fortunate that we have Chasidism as a path to follow and we think this is the best path. It's when people focus on the inferiority of other people and also when they think of themselves as personally superior that I see a problem.
ReplyDelete