Recently I
attended a Muslim event. We were treated to performances of poetry and a
combination of storytelling, song and music. One story about the forbearance of
the prophet Mohammed included a Jew insulting and falsely accusing the
prophet. On Saturday afternoon I lead a Torah
discussion group about the Sidra (reading) of the week and drew attention to
the verse and associated commentary about a non-Jewish female slave that I
found quite uncomfortable reading. This blog post is an exploration of the way
religious leaders or teachers select texts or stories to tell that may lead
people to problematic conclusions. Should there never be self- censorship? Is contextualizing enough? This is far from a complete examination of
discrimination in either Jewish or Islamic texts or the issue of responsible
leadership. Instead, it is an attempt to shed some light on the issues by examining
my own experiences over the past few days.
The Story
A young
Sheikh named Omar, told a story that essentially went as follows: A Jewish
convert to Islam named Abdullah once entered a Mosque and saw another Jewish
man named Zaid sitting among Muslims. Zaid explained to Abdullah that "that
I knew from reading my scriptures that we expected a Prophet and the
characteristics of this prophet. I noticed all the attributes in the Prophet
Mohammed except for one: forbearance. I decided to test him”.
Zaid
approached the Prophet Mohammed and offered him a loan, which the prophet
accepted and agreed to repay the load in dates. Three days before the load was
due for repayment Zaid walked up to the prophet as he was surrounded by his
companions and many people. He made derogatory statements about the tribe of
the prophet, accusing them of being dishonest and stealing the wealth of others
and made accusations relating to the failure to repay the loan.
Umar, a
companion of the prophet was outraged and drew his sword. But the Prophet
Mohammed stopped Umar and insisted that Zaid be talked to about dealing with
issues using honourable speech and noting that there were still three days left
under the terms of the loan. In spite of this the Prophet instructed Umar to immediately
give Zaid 1½ times the original amount of dates. This was to compensate Zaid
for the trauma of being threatened by Umar.
Making
sense of the story
Listening to
the story, I first took it at face value, a story about the virtue of patience.
It echoed, for me, a Talmudic story about how the patience of the sage Hillel
was tested by a man pestering him with inane questions to win a bet that he
could make Hillel angry[i].
Yet, it also struck me that the two Jews in the story both converted to Islam,
which made me just a little uncomfortable. In subsequent conversations about
the story, some people commented about the portrayal of the Jew in the story as
disrespectful to the prophet and money driven or being cast in the role of the
villain.
A key strategy
for positive inter-group relations is curiosity. Yishai Shaliff taught me the
concept of asking from “a place of not knowing[ii]”
which is essentially about asking open question without any implicit
assumptions. I asked Sheikh Omar to tell me more about this story. He shared with me that this was the first
Hadith he learned as a child. But when he first heard it, it was missing both
the beginning and the end and seemed to be just about the loyalty of Umar to the
Prophet. On a trip to a small village with many devout descendants of the
prophet in Yemen, Omar was thrilled to discover the full story. For him this
story is about the importance of non-violence and calm responses to
provocation. We also found common ground in discussing the laws against taking
interest in both our traditions. I wonder how the prophet was allowed to give
Zaid the extra 50%? In Jewish law, even being more social with the lender could
be construed as interest[iii].
Sheikh Omar told me that this was the very same question he wondered about when
first hearing the story but concluding that the additional 50% was a separate
transaction to the loan itself.
I can relate
to Sheikh Omar’s excitement about uncovering a fuller understanding of a sacred
story or text, especially as this leads to a rich practical message about
non-violent responses to provocation. Still,
I wonder about whether young people who attend Sheik Omar’s classes who hear this
story, will also get an unintended message that Jews might be worthy of the
noble prophet’s patience but are also the ones who might insult the Prophet.
Laws
related to Discrimination in the Torah reading
In seeking
to understand the other, it is important to reflect on ourselves and our own frame
of reference. Returning to my own text, our reading this week is emphatic in the
prohibition of discrimination against the stranger[iv].
“And you shall not mistreat a stranger, nor shall
you oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. And again: “And you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the
feelings of the stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt”.
The second verse seems to be an appeal to empathy, you know “how hard it is
(for the stranger) when he is mistreated[v]”. These instructions are related to the issue of power and
powerlessness[vi] and the moral imperative of treating the powerless newcomer
well, never abusing the power imbalance. It also reflects a need for
sensitivity to the suffering of dislocation experienced by a stranger far from
friends and home[vii].
One of the most difficult theoretical aspects of Jewish law
comes up in the same reading. I say,
theoretical because these laws have not been practiced for some two thousand
years. Most of the commentary was written over a thousand years after the
practice was abolished. Yet it remains part of our tradition. The Torah tells
us something about the treatment of a Non-Jewish Slave Woman, but she is not
the subject of the verse but rather one whose fate is secondary. This is a
discussion about a Jewish slave, the Torah tells us that “If his master
gives him a woman/wife[ix](?), and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and
her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone[x]”. The “woman” is a Canaanite (non-Jewish) slave
woman, who is “given” to the Jewish slave for a period of six years but when
her partner goes free she and their children remain behind as property of their
owner.
The relationship between this slave woman and the Jewish male
slave is centred on the production of slave children[xi]. This relationship is
only permitted if the Jewish male slave is already married[xii] ‘because his soul is already attached with his love
toward his Jewish wife’ but if he is not already married we need to worry
that he will become attached to his Cananite slave partner[xiii]”. The quality of their relationship does not seem to matter
at all. The master is allowed to compel the union between the slaves if it is
against the wishes of the male slave[xiv] (I have not found
anything written that is explicit about requiring her consent[xv]). There is no requirement
for this sexual union to become a marriage between the slaves. ‘The Jewish slave should not be separated by
his master from his Jewish wife to be required to become one with and sleep
with the Canaanite slave instead of his Jewish wife, but the Jewish male slave
does have discretion in this matter[xvi]’. The only restriction is that this slave woman cannot be
“given” to two slaves at a time[xvii]. Perhaps somewhat reassuringly, the Torah text itself, as
opposed to the commentary, does envision that the two slaves might come to love
each other to the point that in some case the Jewish slave would be prepared to
continue to be a slave because he declares “I love my (Canaanite slave) wife
and my children[xviii]”.
Conclusion
When I think
about this text, I have no neat way to explain it away. It says what it says.
While it is convenient that this all theoretical and is no longer practiced and
has not been practiced for thousand years, the more important point for me is
that the total moral message of Judaism is one of human dignity and embracing
all human beings. Yet, there is the danger that other Jews will take these
Jewish teachings as legitimising prejudicial attitudes. As a Rabbi and a Jewish
educator this is something I am concerned about. Since Saturday, I have been
thinking about this a lot, consulting a trusted colleague and asking
participants in the Saturday discussion group what their conclusions were. Not
one participant got the message that racism is ok. Our youngest participant
merely thought “it was weird”. While I despise censorship by religious leaders,
deciding what part of the tradition the masses can be trusted with, I am still
grappling with the merit of highlighting the most difficult passages. This is
one reason I have delayed publishing this article till now.
When it
comes to the texts of others there needs to be a genuine curiosity to learn
what these mean for those who follow those texts. This is what I did with my
conversation with Omar in which I was moved by what this story means to him. I
also think it is legitimate for Jews or anyone to be concerned about the ways
negative portrayals of minorities in the sacred texts of faiths other than
one’s own might be understood and applied. This needs to be handled with care. I
am not sure about the best way to approach an Inter-faith discussion with him
about this, in which I show respect for the sacredness of this story for him
while also exploring possible misuse of the story. I trust that with good will, a bit of skill,
sincerity and openness we can have a fruitful discussion.
[i]
Talmud Shabbat 31
[ii] Shalif,
Y, Liviatan, I, Paran, R. (2007), "Care-full Listening and
Conversations", Creating Dialogue between Members of Conflicting
Multi-Cultural Groups Publication
Department, Israel Ministry of Education
[iii]
Maimonides Laws of the Lender and Borrower, 5:12
[iv]
Exodus 22:20, and Exodus 23:9, this translation is from chabad.org. There are traditional sources that interpret the Hebrew word
Ger, which literally means stranger, as convert and focus their commentary on
the particular situation of a convert, the commentary cited above relates as
much to a newcomer to a religious community as it would to any marginalised
person.
[v]
Rashi
[vi]
Ibn Ezra
[vii]
Sefer Hachinuch
[viii]
This way of describing the relationship is used by Munk, Rabbi E, in the Call
of The Torah and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary to the Torah
following earlier sources.
[ix]
The Hebrew word, Isha, means both woman and wife. Which one is the correct
translation?
[x]
Exodus 21:4
[xi]
Maimonides, Laws of Slaves 3:3, Chizkuni, p. 263, Mosad Harav Kook edition,
2006, Jerusalem
[xii]
Mechilta Drashbi
[xiii]
Klei Yakar, referring to Exodus 21:5 and Chizkuni ibid.
[xiv]
Maimonides ibid, Rashi on Talmud Temura 30a,
[xv]
There is an implication in Chizkuni, p.264 that her consent was not required
[xvi]
Ramban, Mechilta Drashbi
[xvii]
Mechilta Drashbi, Maimonides, Laws of Slaves 3:5
[xviii]
Exodus 21:5
