Who will Rest and who shall wander? Rosh Hashanah

Image was originally posted to Flickr
by james_gordon_losangeles at
http://flickr.com/photos/79139277@N08/7435923074
Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

At a time that terrible suffering afflicts millions in the Middle East and continues to traumatize those who have escaped, Jews prepare for our New Year and day of judgement: Rosh Hashanah.  In the synagogue the solemn words will ring out: “Who will live and who will die? Who will die in their time and who before their time? Who by fire? Who by the sword? Who by hunger? Who by thirst? Who will find rest and who shall wander?  Who shall be at peace and who shall be pursued? …who shall be tormented?” This prayer talks about these decisions as being made by God alone. Yet, you and I are also making choices as citizens that might have some influence on these terrible questions.

This week’s decision by the Australian Government to resettle 12,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq, with a focus “on those most in need – the women, children and families of persecuted minorities”, 1 followed pleas by citizens as well as politicians. Last year I heard a representative of the Assyrian community describe the killing and devastation inflicted on his community by Daesh/IS. I connected with their pain and deeply wished this evil would stop! Now, thankfully, at least Assyrians will likely get some relief and be shown some compassion. 

On the other hand, one Australian Muslim who I respect and trust had a different perspective on the government’s announcement. “Muslims will forever remember a time that Australia turned its back on them, or planned too, when they are at their most vulnerable.  This is what radicalises people. Do you see why I say that this government doesn't really care about true de-radicalisation? This is the beginning of the end. Remember this moment! It's when we sacrificed our security, humanity and self-worth for political manoeuvring”. This perspective must be taken into account.

The decisions about who should be resettled and who will continue to suffer and “find nowhere to rest their feet” should be, and should be seen to be, based on need rather than ethnicity or religion. The right to save this one and leave another to suffer could only be claimed by God. Human justice must be procedural and impartial. The NSW Jewish community 2013 policy statement asserts that government should “not adopt any policy that arbitrarily limits or excludes from refugee protection any category of people with a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland”. 2

The argument that a non-sectarian policy is necessary for social cohesion is consistent with an article written this week by former UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. It should be noted that Sacks is not on some kind of left-wing politically correct bandwagon. In fact in 2007, he wrote that “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation…societies more abrasive, fractured and intolerant…”.  3 This week he wrote that it “is hard is to love the stranger, one whose colour, culture or creed is different from yours. That is why the command, “Love the stranger because you were once strangers”, resonates so often throughout the Bible. It is summoning us now. A bold act of collective generosity will show that the world, particularly Europe, (or the west) has learned the lesson of its own dark past and is willing to take a global lead in building a more hopeful future. Wars that cannot be won by weapons can sometimes be won by the sheer power of acts of humanitarian generosity to inspire the young to choose the way of peace instead of holy war”. 4 As my respected Muslim correspondent quoted above points out, the opposite is also true.


We must be hard on the problems and refuse to accept the avoidable suffering of our fellow humans, regardless of ethnicity or religion.  On Rosh Hashanah, I will pray that ‘God reign over the world in a way that will be known to all’. To me, this means that principles of justice and mercy prevail rather than the interests of the rich and powerful or the short term political interests of politicians. At the same time, let us treat each other with understanding and grace. A beautiful Rosh Hashanah prayer asserts that humans are “like a fading flower, like a broken shard of earthenware, and a dream that flies away”. This is a challenging time for those who are suffering and for the preservation of the fragile fabric of our still largely cohesive society. I pray for wise, responsible and compassionate choices by all concerned. 

Notes:
1.    https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-09-09/syrian-and-iraqi-humanitarian-crisis
2.    http://www.nswjbd.org/Our-Policies-/default.aspx, policy last updated (according to the website at 11 am on  10.09.2015) on 17.9.2013
3.    Sacks, J, (2007), the Home We Build Together, p.3, Continuum, London.
4.    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/06/refugee-crisis-jonathan-sacks-humanitarian-generosity accessed 10.09.15

Our Toddler/Their Toddler My God/Your God, Aylan Kurdi and Ki Tavo

Aylan Kurdi with dad and brother

The image of the little boy, Aylan Kurdi, washed up on the beach and his cruel avoidable death calls out accusingly like the blood of the murdered Biblical Abel. God said to Cain “The blood of your brother is screaming to me”. 1 While responding to the immediate catastrophe is vital, we must also consider the factors that are inhibiting a compassionate response. One of these is a sense of that the desperate refugees are the other.

One of the markers of otherness is the belief that ‘the other’ worships a false God. Some people talk about the “Christian God” and how this differs from the “Muslim God Allah”. One man wrote on Facebook, without giving the context 2 of his citation of a fragment of Islamic scripture, “surely those Gods are not the same. One God is said to be about forgiveness and one is about cutting heads!” Religious competition is an old practice. One Torah text talks about ‘making known the difference between the true God who desires loving kindness and the false gods who desire wickedness’. 3

Difference of belief does not need to divide people. This week an Anglican Bishop, a Muslim Sheikh and I chatted and laughed about who is going to hell according to which faith. Yet despite our good time I am concerned that some people who believe that others worship a ‘cruel god’ might not care as much about the suffering of the ‘cruel-god-worshipers’ as they do about people who, like them, are saved and aligned with the good God. Is there a connection between an ‘us and them’ orientation and the fact that Aylan’s death has prompted one politician to comment that this doesn’t happen in Australia because “we stopped the boats”, instead of offering assistance?

Children sometimes ask the Together For Humanity teams of Christians, Muslims and Jews that visit their schools whether we all believe in the same God. I used to think that each of us could say something about our belief in an invisible God-creator who expects us to behave with care toward our fellow humans before the Christian would add something about his belief in Jesus. My incorrect or incomplete understanding of this was that Christians’ belief about God, the creator, was similar to mine but they think that at one point in time this God decided ‘to engage in some sort of “partnership” 4 with a human named Jesus. This simplistic view fails to account for the belief in a trinity beyond the limitations of time that was explained to me by the Bishop this week. Perhaps it is not that easy to answer a simple question about who does or does not believe in the same god.

The Anglican Bishop asserted that the term "Christian God" is wrong. "God does not belong to any religion! We belong to him, not he to us. There is only one God. A term like Christian God can even be idolatry. God is not a thing or a being.  We can have very different understandings about God, like different people might have ways of describing the same distant aunt that are so different from each other, that it sounds like they are talking about different people, although they are actually talking about the same person. And yet maybe sometimes we do get to the point where we are no longer describing the one God differently but in effect now talking about different Gods altogether. Only one of which is real”. 5

In my own tradition there are many references to the God of Israel, God of Abraham or in the ritual of bringing a first fruit offering, we have a formula by which God is referred to by the Israelite farmer as “your God” when speaking to the priest. 6 This does not mean that God is owned by the priest, nor is He owned by Israel, but rather that there is a relationship between the priest, Abraham or Israel with the one unknowable God. 7

Regardless of our beliefs about who is worshiping correctly, we must cross the barriers of “us” and
“them” through the practice of compassion. The horrific images on our computer screens are the living hell that our fellow humans are going through that echo the words of our reading this week: “You will be only wronged and crushed all the days… You will grope at midday, as the blind man gropes in the dark …You will be only oppressed and robbed all the days, and no one will save”. 8 But we can change the last words in the sentence, someone must save! That someone is us.

Notes:
1.    Genesis 4:10
2.    Context was explained in a response by Sheikh Soner Coruhlu “this is in response to those who did their utmost to bring pain and suffering to the newly established Muslim community. They were vulnerable and instead of being nurtured they were tortured, persecuted, starved, and even killed for nothing other than believing in One Deity as opposed to the hundreds the idol worshippers believed in at that time.
It is not unlike Exodus 32:33 where the Almighty decrees quite clearly that He will blot those out who has sinned against Him. The punishment is also mentioned herein.
When we look at the context, we can see in both instances, that punishment is implied to evil doers and those that spread corruption and tyranny on the land. Who take advantage of the poor and destitute, steal what little belongs to the orphans, and indulges oneself in an almost animal like manner in order to satiate their desires even at the pain and suffering of others. Even Muslims fall into the trap of being picky with verses and use such verses with general application. Thus, such individuals partake in what we call selective retrieval in order to implement desired ideologies”.
3.    Rabbi Moshe Dovid Valli, (1696-1777) Mishne Torah page 243 on Deuteronomy 23:16
4.    One word in Jewish traditional sources to make sense of Christian beliefs in a trinity is שיטוף “Shituf” which means partnership
5.    My recollection of a conversation with Bishop Robert Forsyth that was cleared with him in a follow up email on the same day, both on 1 September 2015
6.    Deuteronomy 26:3
7.    Torah Temima on Deuteronomy 26:3
8.    Deuteronomy 28

Shame: Personal and Regarding People Seeking Asylum - Ki Teitzei

Shame is sometimes a wonderful thing but, when inappropriate, can be very destructive to human dignity, 1 spirit and motivation. 2 This may explain the tendency to regard shame as something to be avoided. Despite the problems with shame, we are rightly indignant about people who are “shameless”. In an “aha!” moment this week I realised that I may feel angry with someone because I feel some shame that I am not doing the right thing by them. If I am able to embrace shame as a gift and use it as an (imperfect) “values violation detector”, I can respond to it either by making a choice to do better or by clarifying for myself that I am satisfied with the choices I have been making.

There are different types of shame. The Torah discusses a woman who intervenes when her husband is fighting with another man, and uses the word “shameful parts” when it refers to her grabbing his genitals. 3 When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden “they were naked and they were not ashamed”.4 It is only after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they feel shame, perhaps because they then recognise their vulnerability to inconsiderately selfish and even exploitative sexuality. There is something healthy about Adam and Eve initially not being ashamed of their bodies. Shame is more appropriate in respect of moral failure, with reference to actions, words or attitudes, than in respect of natural imperfection. Shame is often unhelpfully felt, e.g. for being “fat”, or disorganised. Inappropriate or excessive feelings of shame have made some people reluctant to embrace shame where it is useful and needed.  

I wonder if shame avoidance is part of the explanation for the way people seeking asylum are being treated. Perhaps there is an underlying sense of shame, which is covered up by denigrating those whom we know deep down deserve our compassion. 5

It is tempting when refusing to assist vulnerable people to portray them as undeserving. The Torah states: “Beware, lest… your eyes will look in an evil way on your needy brother and not give him”. 6 This is interpreted to mean that, in our reluctance to help a needy person, we must not ascribe evil characteristics to the person seeking our help to justify our refusal. An example of this is the inhabitants of the wealthy city of Sodom; they were concerned about diluting their wealth if they accepted outsiders, so instead they denigrated the visitors as evil, 7 not unlike governments in Australia and Israel that use words like “Illegals” or “infiltrators” in relation to people lawfully seeking asylum. 8

In a discussion in a Sydney synagogue last week, one man asserted that not one of the Africans seeking asylum in Israel was a genuine refugee. He also expressed anger about criminal acts that have been perpetrated by African asylum seekers in South Tel Aviv. He can’t possibly know what the circumstances of the asylum seekers were in their home countries and surely he must know that blaming all members of a group for the acts of some is wrong. Could it be that his assertion that the asylum seekers are not genuine is covering up his discomfort with holding a prejudiced position?

The Torah calls for justice for the stranger 9 and particularly for a compassionate response to and protection of people fleeing oppression. “You shall not deliver a slave to his master if he seeks refuge with you from his master. He shall reside among you, wherever he chooses within any of your cities, where it is good for him. You shall not oppress him”. 10 Many of the refugees who have reached Israel are from Eritrea, where they were slaves in all but name before their escape. According to Israeli NGO, The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, “citizens of Eritrea flee a country with no civilian judiciary… and whose citizens are obligated to perform endless ‘national service’. This service is unlike the service performed in other armies and includes performing various forms of hard labour for the benefit of the regime, including: mining, paving roads and agricultural work. Eritreans who defect from national service are considered traitors and if they are caught, they are tortured and sometimes executed or tortured to death”. 11

In Australia and Israel, there are restrictions preventing asylum seekers from enjoying the benefits and dignity of work. Their conditions do not justify the choice to commit criminal acts; however we should not sit in judgement of those whose circumstances 12 are conducive to increasing crime. Instead, we should work at changing the situation. The verse mentioned above commands that former slaves should be housed “among you”. This is interpreted as cautioning against creating a separate city for the former slaves as this might lead to social unrest or “rebellion”. Instead, the former slaves should be integrated among the people. 13

It is a shame that people who have suffered so much are having doors slammed in their faces by governments. We should not accept this. We are not shameless.

Notes
1.    Dignity is regarded as so important that, in our Torah reading, there is a requirement to ensure that, if someone is hanged for a capital offence, the corpse does not remain hanging overnight. Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Dignity in punishment is also emphasised in relating to flogging, where the Torah warns that excess lashes might lead to your brother becoming cheapened in your eyes. Deuteronomy 25:1-3
Dignity is also hinted at when the Torah states: “You shall not see your brother's ox or sheep straying, and you would ignore them. [Rather,] you shall return them to your brother”. The words:  וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם “you would ignore them” are creatively interpreted in the Talmud as referring to an elder who is unaccustomed to carrying large parcels in public so it would not be dignified for him to do so. In this case the words “you shall ignore them” are taken to mean the exact opposite of the plain in the meaning in the text: he should in fact ignore the lost object, rather than compromise his dignity. Talmud Bava Metzia 30. It comes up again in the command that Israelite soldiers have a designated place outside their camp to relieve themselves and that they carry a spike to dig a hole to cover up their excrement. Deuteronomy 23:13-14 , see Targum Unkelus to 13.
In the case of a debtor, the lender is forbidden from entering the home of the borrower to take a security, but must stand outside. If the borrower is poor and gives his night garments as security, the lender must return the night clothes every evening at sunset so that the poor person can sleep in his garments in dignity. This would be an act of kindness that the Torah predicts would lead the poor borrower to bless the lender. Deuteronomy 24:10-13. 
2.    Tanya Chapter 1 alludes to the problem of being depressed if one sees oneself as wicked
3.    Deuteronomy 25:11
4.    Genesis 2:25
5.    This principle is articulated strongly in our reading this week relating to an escaped slave, discussed in the next paragraph. It is also reflected in the criticism of Amon and Moab whose male members are never to be allowed to join the Jewish people, even to the tenth generation, because they did not welcome the Israelites with bread and water on the road when we left Egypt. Instead they related to us as a threat.  Deuteronomy 23:4-5, compassion for the stranger is also the subject of several commandments relating to sharing one’s crops such as not gleaning and leaving a forgotten sheaf of wheat etc. Deuteronomy 24:19-22
6.    Deuteronomy 15:9
7.    R. Shmelkeh of Nikolsburg. A variation of this in Yalkut Hagershuni creatively reinterprets the last words of the following verse in Genesis 18:20 about the city of Sodom: “Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave,”. Literally, the verse is understood as the words of G-d about the inhabitants of Sodom. But it could also be interpreted as the words the Sodomites themselves used about poor visitors to their city, to justify their inhospitable practices - “their sin” – like the sin of the “illegals” , the “economic migrants”, “queue jumpers” or “infiltrators” is very great and this alleged sin is seen as justifying their cruel treatment. Both cited in Nachshoni, Y., (1989) Studies in the Weekly Parshah, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn New York,  p.1280. This citation is from my previous article relating to these themes: http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/curbing-compassion-for-asylum-seekers.html August 2012
8.    My friend, KL, insists that the term “asylum seekers” is unhelpful and that we should speak instead of “people seeking asylum”.
9.    Deuteronomy 24:17
10.    Deuteronomy 23:16-17
11.    http://hotline.org.il/en/about-us/
12.    Tanya, Chapter 30
13.    Abarbanel and Ralbag on these verses

Political Correctness: Boat People, Balaam and Muslims

The objection to political correctness is often used to justify insensitive, divisive and destructive speech. A man approached me this week at the Synagogue to say he supports the relentless, harsh rhetoric in the media and by some of our politicians about Muslims and terrorism because he doesn’t believe in political correctness. I disagree. While political correctness should not be allowed to stifle purposeful debate or criticism of specific people who do wrong, speech that generalises or disproportionately emphasises the negative, is unjust and irresponsible.

Elizabeth Ban, a giant spirit who passed away last week, facilitated dialogue between Jews and Muslims. This helped people in both communities develop a more realistic as well as positive understanding of each other.

Elizabeth had one last task she wanted to accomplish before she died. She sought to change the conversation about asylum seekers in the Sydney Jewish community. She made a good start by initiating an event at which 60 members of the community connected with asylum seekers (1). The following joke might help continue her mission: Dark- skinned young comedian, Suren Jayemanne, gets asked if he is a “boat person”? No, he replies, I am a car person actually. I’m really into cars, I hate sailing. It reminds me of the 7 months it took me to get to Australia… A pause, a little shock, and then everyone laughed: the “othering” term, ‘boat person’, is made to sound ridiculous.

The danger of negative speech plays out in our Torah reading (2). A man named Balaam faced a dramatic and successful attempt, involving a talking ass (3), an angel and God himself, to silence him. 

The colourful story begins with the one-eyed (4) sorcerer, Balaam, being asked to curse the Jews. While Balaam is on his way to do this, an angel is sent to stop him, he is reprimanded by his donkey, and finally God, Himself, puts words in his mouth that force him to bless and praise the Jews instead of cursing them.

The story is puzzling. Why would it have mattered if Balaam cursed the Jews?! Surely, only God decides if curses can have any impact (5).

There are four ways to think about this, all useful.

a) The impact of the curses would have caused distress to the target of the curses. “People then and now are impressed by sorcerers. The Israelites in those times, particularly the women and children (6), would have been greatly affected by the maledictions of such a renowned sorcerer (7)”. The impact on the Muslim community, particularly the young people, of being continually demonised, is substantial, unjust and unhelpful.  

b) The impact of the curses, had they been allowed to be spoken, would have been to embolden the enemies of the Jews (8). Again, this has relevance. The relentless, harsh rhetoric by politicians and the media encourages citizens who harbour prejudice, to express it both verbally and physically. In the case of asylum seekers, it reinforces prejudice and antipathy to the “boat people”.

c) Words have a spiritual, self-fulfilling impact. Negative speech can elicit negative behaviour from the targeted person, while praise strengthens the positive elements and potential in the person being spoken about (9).

d) At the literal level, our tradition clearly sees the prevention of the curses as being a protective and loving act by God for the Jewish people. “But the Lord, your God, did not want to listen to Balaam. So the Lord, your God, transformed the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord, your God, loves you” (10).

Words matter. There are times when circumstances legitimately call for criticism of specific or even systemic problems and the people or groups responsible for these problems. Serious debate between philosophies, world views and even faiths can serve to tease out the truth, and this requires disregarding political correctness. However, often, negative speech serves no legitimate purpose while being quite destructive. If one has nothing nice to say, it might be time to “open both eyes” to see the full picture of both the admirable qualities alongside the faults, rather than seeking to verbally destroy like a “one- eyed” Balaam.


Notes

1)    http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/closing-empathy-gap-with-unlike.html
2)    Numbers 22-25
3)    Ralbag suggests that the whole encounter between Balaam and his donkey was a dream
4)    Talmud Sanhedrin 105a, states that Balaam was blind in one eye
5)    Ralbag
6)    The sexist implication in this explanation needs to be seen in the context of the time, centuries ago, when this was written.
7)    Ibn Kaspi, Joseph, Tirat Kesef, cited in Lebovitz, N, Studies in Bamidbar
8)    Abarbanel
9)    The Lubavitcher Rebbe
10)    Deuteronomy 23:6

Closing the Empathy Gap with the “unlike”

Last night I had a powerful experience that relates to the issues of discrimination and compassion for people who seem different to “us”.

At a skilfully facilitated session (1) led by Shoshana Faire and Chantelle Ogilvie-Eliss (and initiated by the recently departed social justice champion, Elizabeth Ban) we were asked to tell as personal story that relates to one of four values themes.

 I told a story about something that didn’t happen. I didn’t show up at a birthday party on a boat for my non-Jewish friend Ray. Ray had been a good friend, he helped me when I had car trouble, he was loving and generous in his attitudes and words about me personally and he also volunteered huge amounts of time for a project we did together. Yet, I didn’t attend his special celebration. Perhaps I didn’t forget. It might have never fully registered in the first place. I am ashamed to say it, but at that early stage of my cross-cultural interfaith journey, I think I had a deep mental block about personal friendship with a “goy”. 

The six men and women I sat with shared anecdotes about freedom and cross cultural acceptance. Then we heard from a Hazara boy who recently finished school and a Tamil schoolgirl of 17 about their values, like charity, compassion, caring for others, independent thinking, fun playing volley ball and education. We really connected! I certainly care more now about the plight of asylums seekers subjected to cruel policies in Australia, than I cared yesterday before this session.

I think the power of the experience last night relates to two ideas discussed in the academic literature. One is that “research indicates a strong inverse relationship between levels of prejudice and empathy (2) and suggests that “invoking empathy can reduce racism levels (3) ”. This research found that empathy is more significant than information in countering prejudice. Yet, another scholar argues “We have more empathy for those we see as (being) like us”. In one research experiment “when viewing pictures of faces, people showed more empathetic responses, as measured by physiology and self report, for members of the same ethnic group” and that”empathy leads to helping only in cases when the  person in need is a member of the in‐group (4)”. This sounds like a ‘catch 22’, empathy is key to countering prejudice, yet empathy is least likely in cross-cultural situations, unless of course one can come to see “them” as one of “us”. This was certainly achieved last night. 

It is appropriate that the Torah reading this week deals with the un-kosher bird, called the stork in English but “Hasida” in Hebrew. There is a belief in Judaism that non-Kosher animals have bad characteristics, yet the name of the stork, “Hasida” is related to the word “Hesed” which means kindness. Yet our traditions teaches us that the stork is only “kind to its friends”, or its “own kind” (5). My prayer is that more Australians can extend our tradition of mateship to our fellow humans seeking safety and a better life on our shores. Let us all realise that “they” are “us”.

Notes:
1)    The event was hosted by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies in collaboration with the Sydney Alliance
2)    Batterham, D. (2001). Modern racism, reconciliation and attributions for disadvantage: A role for empathy and false beliefs? cited Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise, M. (2005). Talk Does Not Cook Rice: Beyond anti-racism rhetoric to strategies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20-30.
3)    Finlay & Stephan, 2000 Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes, cited in Pedersen
4)    Prinz, J, Is Empathy Necessary For Morality, http://subcortex.com/IsEmpathyNecessaryForMoralityPrinz.pdf accessed 14.04.2015
5)    This theme is further developed in my post http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/flawed-idealists-hasidim-prejudice.html

Child Sacrifice

This image by "Speedy95" is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial
No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

On Wednesday morning I gave a lift to a man whose home burnt down in the Blue Mountains fires; he got on a train to try to retrieve some of his remaining possessions from a nearby suburb. As I dropped him at the station I could only hope he would come back safely. He did.  On 702 Radio I heard a heartfelt expression of gratitude by a woman named Melissa to all the interstate and out- of- area fire fighters. There is something about situations of vulnerability that brings out the best in people. Yet, we also have the horrific phenomenon of child sacrifice in our traditions and in other forms even today. The welfare of children is not always protected adequately; in some cases, other priorities have interfered with decision making by otherwise good people who should have been more focused on what is best for children.

Child sacrifice, more precisely a story about it, has united Muslims and Jews: Muslims celebrated the Eid last week that commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son; Jews read about it in the weekly Torah portion Vayerah. The same story - I am told by a Christian friend - has huge significance for Christians. Our Torah reading of last week included five instances involving a parent or a community and some form of sacrifice of a “child” (1), involving two brothers and three sisters.

Abraham had prepared to slaughter  his son Isaac   as an offering to obey God’s command (2). One way of understanding Abraham’s reaction to this command is that he has an inner struggle with his conscience or doubts (3) as illustrated in two Midrashic stories. In one story, Satan suggests “tomorrow you will be told you are a shedder of blood!” (4); in a second, Satan questions whether the command was from God or actually from Satan himself (5). Despite these thoughts,  Abraham persists with his mission and shows great faith, which is celebrated in Judaism. In the end, the notion of human sacrifice is categorically rejected by God, who tells Abraham via an angel that he has proven his loyalty but he “should not send his hand to the child nor should he do anything to him” (6).

Another case of a child being sacrificed is only hinted at in the text and is clearly condemned. God refers to  the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah “…their sin has become very grave, I will descend now and see whether according to her cry, which has come to Me, they have done” (7).  Commentary interprets “her cry” as referring to the cry of a specific girl (8). 

“They had announced in Sodom that anyone who gives bread to a poor person or a foreigner will be burned in fire. Plotis, the daughter of Lot…saw a poor person in the city square… Every day as she [Lot’s daughter] went out to draw water from the well she put some food from her house in her pitcher and would feed the poor person. The Sodomites wondered how this poor person remained alive. Until the matter became known and Plotis was taken out to be burned…” (9) 

According to Jewish teachings, the cruelty of Sodom was motivated by a deterrence strategy that was aimed at keeping outsiders out and to preserve wealth (10). There are echoes of this approach in asylum seeker policies referred to in Australia as “border protection”. In Sodom, the life of young Plotis was sacrificed in an effort to maintain this xenophobic policy; in our time children in detention continue to pay the price for deterrence strategies.

Plotis’ sisters are offered as the next sacrifice when Lot’s visitors are threatened with Sodomy by an angry mob. In trying to protect his guests, Lot offers his two daughters who “have never known a man” to the mob. (11). Lot’s action is strongly condemned in one Midrash that suggests he should have killed or allowed himself to be killed to protect his daughters (12). An alternative interpretation is that Lot has no intention of allowing his daughters to be violated. Instead he is thought to be sarcastic just as someone might say “my house is open for you, just take anything you want”, knowing that this would not be done (13).

Another sacrifice, not in terms of losing a life, but rather the loss of a parent- child relationship and home, relates to the case of Ishmael. Sarah becomes concerned about Ishmael’s possible adverse influence on her son Isaac   (14). One interpretation is that Ishmael captured grasshoppers and offered them as sacrifices to idols (15). Abraham feels very sad about his son Ishmael, but in the end banishes him, giving him some bread and water and sending him off with his mother. There are other opinions that Ishmael was shooting arrows at Isaac with the intent to kill him (16), so the decision to banish Ishmael is as much a case of child protection as child sacrifice.  I also draw some comfort from traditions that Abraham goes out to the desert twice over coming years to visit Ishmael, demonstrating that his fatherly love endures (17). 

One very moving incident involves Hagar, the banished homeless maidservant wandering in the desert, who sees her son getting very sick and dehydrated;  so she puts him down under a tree. “She went and sat herself down the distance of arrow shots because she said (to herself) I will not see the death of the boy, and she sat  from afar, and she raised her voice and wept” (18). Her son Ishmael would have been desperate for her comforting presence, yet she feels so broken she cannot bear any more pain.

On Sunday, while I was writing the first draft of this article, I found myself stressed about a task set for me by an academic advisor. As I finally felt I was making some progress, I heard my son crying in another room. I had to tear myself away from what I was doing and try to comfort him. He was frustrated by his efforts learning to ride a bicycle. I took him to a park and, in almost no time, he triumphed with his riding and was thrilled!

I close with prayers for all vulnerable people suffering from fire, poverty, policies against “illegals” and children who depend on the good judgement and care of others.

(1)    There are various traditions about the ages of the five “children”, but all are referred to as the child of either Abraham or Lot.
(2)    Genesis 22
(3)    Leibowitz, Nehama, New Studies in Bereshit Genesis, p.196
(4)    Midrash Tanchuma
(5)    Midrash Vayosha, Bet Hamidrash Jellineck, Tel Aviv, Ozar Midrashim, Eisenstein, New York 1928, cited in Leibowitz, Nehama, New Studies in Bereshit Genesis, p. 206
(6)    Genesis 22:12
(7)    Genesis 18:21-22
(8)    Talmud, Sanhedrin 109b, quoted in Rashi, Beresheet Rabbah
(9)    Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 25, cited in Torah Shlaima p.776. In this version she is a married woman rather than a young girl as stated in theTalmud. An alternative commentary states that she was raped (Midrash Chefetz, also cited in Torah Shlaima).
(10)     Ramban articulates this view powerfully
(11)     Genesis 19:4-7
(12)     Midrash Tanchuma Vayerah 12, an alternative interpretation actually praised Lot for his dedication to his guests and compares his sacrifice to that of Moses who was prepared to sacrifice himself for Israel (Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 25, cited in Torah Shlamia p.794)
(13)     Drashat Even Shuiv, in the name of Rabbenu Chananel, cited in Torah Shlamia p.794. This interpretation is certainly more comfortable, although a similar case involving the rape of a concubine (Judges Ch. 19-20) suggests that this outlandish bargain could actually be struck.
(14)     Genesis 21:9-14
(15)     Tosefta Sotah 6
(16)     Tosefta Sotah 6, cited in Rashi
(17)     Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer cited in Meam Loez
(18)     Genesis 21:16

Curbing Compassion for Asylum Seekers?

Restraining Compassion

Australians are witnessing a dramatic shift in refugee policy. Only a few years back a new Labour Government emphatically rejected the previous government’s strategy of sending Asylum seekers to a third country, Nauru. In a matter of days Legislation is being enacted to allow this practice to resume. It has not been an easy decision, clearly some government MPs have reservations. Refugee advocates see this as a step away from a compassionate approach. Some have cried racism and prejudice, claiming that if those seeking entry to Australia were white farmers from Zimbabwe there would be a much more welcoming stance. Others vehemently reject any accusation of prejudice.

There has also been some discussion about an article by a member of the Jewish community about the need to curb our compassion (not the authors choice of title), or redirect it from those on the boats to other refugees waiting in queues. What contribution does my tradition bring to this debate?

The Stranger

Perhaps the most repeated commandment in the Torah is to love the stranger, often combined with a reminder of Jews’ experience of being an outsider in Egypt where we were made slaves. We must be concerned with the welfare of those who are vulnerable and are seen as outsiders/strangers.

To Curb and Not to Curb Compassion

In our Torah reading this week we have instructions both to curb our compassion and not to do so depending on the circumstances.  We are taught to curb our compassion in cases involving a person who leads others astray by promoting idol worship[i] and a Murder[ii]. Both cases involve extremely serious threats to the community, the latter to life itself and the former to spiritual life. In the case of a vulnerable person we are told “you shall not harden your heart, and you shall not close your hand from your needy brother[iii]”.

Deserving

Some have portrayed those arriving on our shores in boats as “queue jumpers”. Others have argued that because there are some Muslims who are extremists, this should influence attitudes to Muslim arrivals in general. Generalising from a tiny minority to a huge majority is neither reasonable nor just.

I don’t think it is racist to argue like my Darwin taxi driver did yesterday; that Australia’s charity should be prioritised to benefit people living in Australian, i.e. Aboriginal people living in dire poverty or that we should be equitable in our treatment of refugees whether they are in queues or boats. We are taught that in the administration of justice we must not be swept away by emotion[iv], instead we must be fair to all. Fairness includes being alert to unconscious prejudices that many of us still have in spite of our tolerant or accepting intentions.  

A teacher in Adelaide reflected last week on the fact that many Australians believed initial reports 10 years ago about asylum seekers that “those people” threw their children overboard. Some of us were prepared to believe that the people on these boats were so different from us that they lacked the fundamental human quality of parental love.

It is tempting when refusing to assist vulnerable people to portray them as undeserving. We are warned against this by our sages. The Torah states, “Beware, lest… your eyes will look in an evil way on your needy brother and not give him[v]”. At the simple level it means having an ungenerous perspective, but it is also interpreted to mean that in our reluctance to help a needy person we must not ascribe evil characteristics to the person seeking our help to justify our refusal[vi].

Changed Circumstances Justifies a change of policy

The home affairs minister, Jason Clare, argued on Radio this week that the Labour Government was justified in changing its position because the reality had changed. 600 people had died while trying to gain asylum in Australia by travelling here by boat. The principle is sound, when a law causes significant harm, it is quite reasonable to review the law. God made a law that had the potential to lead to a situation where “there would not be any poor person among you[vii]”. This would be the result of a system of Jubilee and Sabbatical years, in which poverty would not entrench itself[viii]. Every seven years all debts would be cancelled[ix] and poor people who sold themselves into slavery would go free, in the Jubilee they would regain ownership of any property they sold.

The Torah makes it clear that the blessed state of a poverty free society is conditional on obedience of the law[x]. This ambitious scheme was dependent on people transcending their natural self-interest. Some Twelve hundred years later, it became clear that the result of the law was to harm the very people it sought to help. The sage Hillel observed that in the lead up to the Sabbatical year people stop lending money to each other. He found a way around the law, essentially allowing lenders to transfer their loans to the court[xi].   

The application of the principle of changed circumstances to laws about Asylum seekers is less straight forward. In both cases well-intentioned laws are confronted with reality tests and found wanting. However, in the case of loans, the law was a direct and unavoidable cause of hardship. There was no other option but to give up the idealistic law. In the case of Asylum seekers, it could be argued that there is another option; we can choose to allow people to come here by plane which apparently is half the cost that they are charged by the operators of these boats. Others would argue that this is not viable as there are simply far more people seeking to come to Australia than it could accommodate.

Justice

More broadly we are meant to see our assistance to those in needs not as charity but as an act of justice[xii]. The Torah states that if a poor person will cry out to God because he cannot get a loan in the lead up to the seventh year[xiii], this will be considered a sin for the person refusing to lend him money[xiv]. This is because the person who has the ability to give is like a king’s bursar, entrusted by the king to distribute funds. When the poor person cries out it is like a citizen complaining to the king about the bursar withholding funds that the king had allocated for him[xv].  It has also been taught that the reason that one person is poor is order to create an opportunity for another to have the merit of providing for him/her[xvi]. Our decision to share our resources with an individual knocking on our door, either of our house, our embassy or in a leaky boat needs to be informed by the knowledge that ultimately all our wealth is not absolutely ours but has been given to us in trust, perhaps to share with that exact needy person.

Further Considerations

On one hand there is something beautiful about the way no expense is spared when someone is in trouble, such as some adventurer in a row boat on the high seas who lost her paddle. Yet, questions about equitable use of limited public funds sometimes need to be asked. Questions also need to be asked about the justice of treating some people harshly in order to deter other people from risking their lives. Australia will be bringing in plain packaging for cigarettes to discourage smoking, it could be argued that if we applied the same logic being used in the asylum seeker debate to smokers, we would be locking them up to help deter others from smoking. 

There is more that can be said about all this. We are taught, it is not for you to complete the work, but you are not free to desist from it. 

Closing with hope that fewer people have the need to flee their home countries, and that wise, compassionate and equitable response are found to respond to those who choose to flee or migrate for whatever reason. Until then, let us never lose sight of humanity, both our own and those of all our fellow humans. 

---

[i] Deuteronomy 13:9

[ii] Deuteronomy 19:13

[iii] Deuteronomy 15:7

[iv] Exodus 23:3, “and the poor, you should not be glorify in his (legal) fight”.

[v] Deuteronomy 15:9

[vi] R. Shmelkeh of Nikolsburg, a variation of this also appears in Yalkut Hagershuni that reinterprets the phase in genesis 18:20 about the city of Sodom, “their sin is very grievance” which literally is understood as the words of God about the inhabitants of Sodom, but could also be interpreted as the words of the Sodomites about poor visitors to their city which justified their inhospitable practices. Both cited in Nachshoni, Y., (1989) Studies in the Weekly Parshah, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn New York,  p.1280

[vii] Deuteronomy 15:4

[viii] Chizkuni based on the Bchor Shor

[ix] Deuteronomy 15:2, this idealistic conception of the cancelation of debts is hard to reconcile with the restriction of this amnesty only to Jews. One more practical explanation of the law by Chizkuni ties it to the ability to pay in normal years by selling crops. Jewish farmers were forbidden to sell crops in the Sabbatical year and therefore did not have the ability to pay. Non-Jewish farmers were not obligated to leave their land fallow which meant that they could pay their debts. According to this explanation Jewish craftsmen should have to pay, while non-Jewish unemployed people, especially farm hands who might find work on Jewish farms that would now be directly impacted by the Sabbatical year should be freed from their debts. This is not the case. Perhaps the counter argument would be that the law is formulated according to the majority. What I like about this argument is that it implies a rejection of discrimination by seeking a technical justification. Of course it would suit me better if the law treated both Jews and non-Jews equally.

[x] Deuteronomy 15:5

[xi] Sifrei, the technical fix interprets the words “do not press your brother for payment” as applying only to a direct transaction between the lender and “his brother”, it does not explicitly restrict the court from collecting debts, so by transferring the loan to the court collection becomes permissible.

[xii] This point is discussed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichot, based on the Hebrew word for giving to the poor being Tzedakah which is related to the word Tzedek/justice.

[xiii] During the 7^th year all loans were cancelled in Biblical times. This led lenders to be reluctant to lend as the year approached.

[xiv] Deuteronomy 15:9

[xv] Michca Belulah

[xvi] Ohr Hachayim on 15:7