 |
| From The Age newspaper |
A white newspaper columnist called it “a Textbook case of society’s failure to save a child[1]”. “Diane[2]” is a 15 year old Aboriginal girl who will be sentenced by an Australian court next Monday, 14 May 2012. She has repeatedly brutally attacked girls and women, stomping on one girl’s face before robbing her. She is illiterate, has trouble hearing and has an IQ score in the lowest 1 per cent. She is a regular drug user suffering unresolved grief who had thought of killing herself. The Columnist suggests that this case points to “a deeper failure to resolve the legacy of indigenous dispossession and alienation”.
This is not about what the courts should decide in these cases. It is about
the broader moral question of how we think about alienated offenders with
difficult circumstances be they black, brown or white. I think there is a lot
of merit to the understanding approach that takes into account the horrific
things done to Aboriginal people, the impact of the collective memory and
ongoing issues and the individual hardship that people like Dianne experience. Still,
I also worry about communicating a message to people of her situation that society
is prepared to accept violence and robbery from them, because we think they
cannot help themselves. What is the right response?
Death of the Blasphemer-Outcast-half-Breed-“Bastard”
There was a man of mixed heritage, son of
Egyptian father and an Israelite mother named Shelomit of the tribe of Dan who quarrelled
with an Israelite man[3]”. The Torah does not tell us the name of either of the flawed men who were quick to fight[4], but as a device let us call our Protagonist by the name
Ben.
I feel for Ben, a half-Egyptian among the
recently liberated Israelite former slaves. His mother Shelomit is described as
a flawless beauty[5] that was a bit of a flirt, happily chatting with anyone[6]. Ben’s Egyptian father was an Egyptian task master who came
to see his mother’s husband Dathan[7]. When the Egyptian official came into their tent Shelomit, flirted
with him. The Egyptian hid behind a ladder[8] and when the husband went out he raped her[9]. Ben was the result of their encounter and according to one
view his status was like that of a “Bastard[10]”. The Egyptian realised that the husband, Dathan, knew what
happened, so the Egyptian beat him and tried to kill him. Moses appears on the
scene at that moment and miraculously kills the Egyptian by pronouncing God’s
name[11]. Dathan survives and
divorces Shelomit. Shelomit’s brothers are furious and seek to kill Dathan[12]. What a load of baggage for a young man trying to find his
place in the world.
Ben first identified with his absent Egyptian father
but then decide to convert[13] and join his mother’s family[14]. The Israelites camped according to their tribes and Ben
approaches the Dan camp[15] to join his mother’s tribe. He receives a hostile reception, a Dan man
fights with him, he degrades Ben’s mother[16], he tells Ben “you are
a Bastard and the son an Egyptian[17]!” Ben asks the Israelite man, “where is my Egyptian father?”
He is told that his father was killed by Moses by use of God’s name. Ben has
been deeply humiliated by this stage, contrary to the idea “don’t rush out to
fight[18]” he hurries[19] to the court of the great prophet Moses, his father’s
extra-judicial killer[20], to resolve the issue but he loses the case[21]. Utterly rejected and
furious, Ben pronounced the same Divine Name used by Moses to kill his father and
blasphemes. He is promptly imprisoned and obeying divine guidance, he is
executed, the whole camp stoning him.
How
serious is Blasphemy?
The first objection the modern reader would
raise is about Blasphemy being punished by death. I must be honest that I am
glad that the laws relating to Blasphemy and punishments are not in force
today. To try to imagine how seriously Blasphemy was taken it useful to read a
description of the procedures of a Blasphemy. “The whole day [of the
trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a euphemism for the divine name,
‘may Yose smite Yose.” When the trial
was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons
were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally
what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then
arose and tore their garments (a sign of mourning), which were not to be
resewn….[22]”.
For the purpose of this discussion, it is useful to put
to one side, the question of the harshness of the punishment or even the
question about whether Blasphemy should be a crime. Instead let us focus on the
moral question about how someone like Ben is to be approached can be considered
in the light of this story and its commentaries.
Difficult Circumstances Defence
I would think Ben would be entitled to some understanding for his
situation. We find that Job is not judged for his complaints against God[23],
because, “Job, not with knowledge does he
speak[24]”.
Out of the difficulty of his pain, he is considered to not be of sound mind[25].
Based on this, our sages have concluded that a person is not punished for what
s/he says in a situation of pain[26].
I wonder why Ben, is not let off the hook?
The bigotry/personal animosity
motive?
Traditional commentary rejects the idea that
the killing of the “son of the Egyptian” was motivated by hatred in the heart
related to the fight with the “Israelite man[27]”. The Torah repeatedly emphasises equal treatment between
the stranger and the long-standing “citizen”. It raises this point again twice!
along with a few other laws in middle of the story of the Blasphemer[28]. We are then told, “the
Israelites took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him…just as the Lord
had commanded Moses[29]”. The motive was solely to obey God’s command.
Combination of Understanding
with high standards
One approach to this issue combines genuine humility and understanding
with high expectations. “One should not
judge his fellow until being in their place[30]”.
For it is literally his “place” i.e., his
physical environment that causes him to sin, since his livelihood requires him
to go about the market-place all day…(or) he is of those who sit at the
street-corners. Thus his eyes see all sorts of
temptation; and “‘what the eyes see, the heart desires….”. In addition a
person who had the benefit of religious knowledge is encouraged to consider
him/herself “lowly[31]”
in comparison with an uneducated sinner. One must also avoid judgement based on
other factors including individual temperaments. Alongside these teachings sits
the following statement: In truth, even he who is extremely passionate by
nature, and whose livelihood obliges him to sit all day at the street-corners,
has no excuse whatsoever for his sins…For he should have controlled himself and
restrained the feeling of desire in his heart….[32]”.
Conclusion
I still have trouble with the whole sad episode of Ben, from his
rejection by the tribe of Dan to the confirmation of that rejection by the
court of Moses and Torah law, through to his execution. How do we reconcile
this story with teachings about the importance of caring for the vulnerable and
human dignity? Returning to the original question about the offender-victim, I
will not make any attempt at offering solutions to the problems that led up to
Dianne’s scheduled court appearance. But I will repeat what an Aboriginal
community worker I have great respect for told me in another context, that it
is vital that young people in her community learn that they have choices about
their future.
[1] Horin, A, When all else fails, society can too.
Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, 5-6 May 2012
[2] Not her real name
[3] Leviticus 24:10
[4] Klei Yakar
[5] Shemot Rabba 1:32
[6] Vayikra Rabba 32:5, Midrash
Hagadol, also cited in Rashi, Her name is taken as a clue that she was a loose
woman, “Shelomit” which is related to the word Shalom/peace and this is
interpreted as asking everyone how they are, the name Dibri is closely related
to the word for talking Daber and is also taken as reflecting her chattiness.
[7] Shemot Rabba 1:32
[8] Vayikra Rabba
[9] Midrash Hagadol
[10] Torat Cohanim, Vayikra Rabba
32:4
[11] Shemot Rabba 1:34
[12] Sefer Hayashar, and Midrash
Divrei Hayamim L’Moshe cited in Torah Shelaima vol 8, p.77
[13] Torat Cohanim
[14] Hizkuni
[15] Torat Cohanim
[16] Zohar Vayikra, 106a, cited
in http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/92077274.html
[17] Hizkuni
[18] Proverbs 25:8
[19] Yelamdenu
[20] There is an implied
criticism of this killing in Midrash Petirat Moshe in which God asks Moses “did
I tell you to kill the Egyptian?” Moses counters by pointing out God’s killing
of the first born Egyptians, to which God retorts, “are you like me, to make
die and make live, can you give life like I do? Cited in Torah Shelaima vol 8,
p.81
[21] Torat Cohanim
[22] Mishna Sanhedrin, 7:5
[23] Job 9:24 “The earth has been given into the hands of a wicked one; he
covers the faces of its judges. If not, then who is he?”
[24] Job 34:35
[25] Metzudat David
[26] Talmud Bava Basra 16b
[27] Ohr Hachayim, Ramban and
Seforno on Leviticus 24: 23
[28] Leviticus 24: 16 & 22
[29] Leviticus 24: 23
[30] Pirkey Avod 2:4
[31]
Pirkey Avot 4:10 combined with Talmud Bava Metzia 33b as explained in Tanya 30
[32] Tanya 30, translation text
taken from Lessons in Tanya
http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7909/jewish/Chapter-30.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment