Murder in Parramatta: Cain, shame and responsibility – Bereshit

One image has been playing on my mind since the murder of Curtis Cheng: the 15 year old killer waving his gun in the air and shouting. I see a link to the young murderer in Oregon who reportedly wrote that mass killings can get a person “known by no one” into the limelight.1

I do not have access to evidence about these murders. Instead I will tap traditional teachings for some possible insights. Escaping shame is a major factor in the first recorded murder I am aware of, that of Abel by his brother Cain. The vain, honor seeking2 younger brother Abel and his older brother Cain wanted God to settle the question which of them was greater, the shepherd Abel or the farmer Cain. They each brought offerings, but Cain and his offering were ignored while God turned to Abel and his offering3, by sending a miraculous fire4 and by blessing Abel with success while Cain’s crops failed. 5 Cain “was despising himself in his own eyes”6 feeling shamed by God,7 his face “blackened like a coal”.8 Cain’s shame then turned into rage, his face burning like fire.9 

One remedy for deep shame involves recognizing that one has a choice10 about the future as well as opportunity to take responsibility for past failure and come to terms with it rather than blaming others.11 God asked Cain why he was so angry and ashamed.12 God drew Cain’s attention to his ability to choose a path that would make him better than Abel.13 Unfortunately Cain chose not to avail himself of this option, instead allowing his anger to lead him to murder. Is there some similarity to Cain’s craving for status due to his shame,  in a 15 year old murderer holding his arm up as high as he can, waving a gun and shouting a religious slogan?  

A year ago another person, also drawn to Islamist extremism, and perhaps also seeking personal redemption though shedding the blood of others, had been dismissed by some as crazy. He was a criminal who victimized the women in his life. Was he viewed as being outside of human society and not quite human?  In some of our traditions Cain is seen in this way: his ‘breed’ “had two heads and four eyes”.14 We are told that his father was not Adam but the snake that impregnated Eve15, or the evil angel Samael.16 While there are reasons to isolate murderers, and to communicate a high level of disgust with their behaviour, the child’s face of the Parramatta killer reminds us of the chilling truth that killers are people like the rest of us.

We are now hearing incessant demands by some for Australian Muslims to “own this crime”. One Muslim writer expressed frustration that Muslims seem to be expected to prevent events like this, despite the obvious fact that this is not something they can guarantee. Italian people are not expected to prevent all “Italian crime”!

In fact, there are local Muslim community workers, including two amazing Sheiks I know, who are undertaking educational work that will hopefully make violent incidents like the Parramatta murder less likely. Some of these workers believe that, given the kind of public conversation we are having, highlighting their work in the media might be seen as conceding some guilt about or association with the crime.

There is always room for improvement, but I wish the degree of acceptance of responsibility for preventive education among Australian Muslims was better known. At the same time, I believe that non-Muslims have responsibility to do our part in ensuring we develop inclusive communities that preserve the dignity of all, thereby reducing the likelihood of school students feeling so alienated that they can be brain-washed to commit murder. 

Religion is sometimes a contributing factor to hostility; but it can also contribute to solutions. In Genesis we see God feeling aggrieved about the state of the world, and his response is to wipe out civilization.17 He is said to be saddened by the “humans on the earth”18, which one commentary interprets as being too much mixed up with matters of the earth, focused on the material and the body rather than the spiritual.19 In the Torah, God eventually promises never to destroy the world again, because he accepts the reality of human frailty. The symbol of this commitment is the rainbow.

As parents of all faiths do their best to raise good children, so do our multi-dimensional communities - via social institutions providing education, health, welfare and policing and in more personal ways in our everyday activities. , In the wake of another tragic murder, I reaffirm my commitment to continue my own efforts to affirm the dignity of all, to try to ensure that shame, when it appears, can be more successfully harnessed for good, rather than become a driver for rage and violence. As flawed humans, people of all ages need to learn how to pursue excellence and success with patience and resilience, and how to promote justice with courage and compassion in a flawed world

 Notes

1.    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/essay-refusing-to-say-a-killers-name-is-no-more-than-symbolic-empowerment/2015/10/02/2cd2cf7c-6923-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
2.    Abarbanel. The Hebrew name of Abel, Hevel, means air, which can be linked using modern slang to being ‘full of hot air’, the choice of shepherding sheep and “leading them” is seen as reflecting this pursuit of being important. In contrast to this view of Abarbanel, Ohr Hachayim (starting with the words Vateled et Kain) quotes the sages that Cain was of the aspect of evil and Abel was of the aspect of good. A synthesis of the two views might be found in the Ohr Hachayim’s assertion that Abel soul was also that of Moses, that means that Moses was a reincarnation of Abel and that in the wounds inflicted on Abel by Cain he removed the bad elements from Abel’s soul and the pure good was revealed. This is alluded to in the words in Genesis 4:1, “I have acquired a man, God” referring to Moses the man of God who only reached this level of being with God because of the suffering inflicted on him by Cain. This also links to story cited in Meiri about Moses having a flawed character that he overcame by his working on himself.
3.    Genesis 4:4-5
4.    Midrash Hagadol cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 312, 44, Rashi
5.    Pesikta Zuta cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 312, 45
6.    Midrash Hagadol cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 312, 44
7.    Seforno
8.    Minchat Yitzchak, cited and explained in Torah Shlaima, p. 312, footnote to 42
9.    Beresheet Rabba, 22
10.    Seforno on Genesis 4:6
11.    Abarbanel
12.    Genesis 4:6
13.    Abarbanel, this is based on his interpretation of the ambiguous word “Se-et” שאת in Genesis 4:7, which can be translated as forgiven, but also as uplifted as this word is used in Genesis 49:3
14.    Midrash cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 304, footnote 7
15.    Pirkey Drabi Eliezer, cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 304
16.    Pirush Yonatan citing the Midrash
17.    Genesis 6
18.    Genesis 6:5
19.    Radak

Brush Turkey “Battle” “Blessed Violence?” & prejudice - Vzot Habracha

Brush Turkey happily
back on his mound

The battle to banish the
Brush Turkey

Apart from reminding ourselves that perpetrators of violence should not be taken to represent everyone from any cultural or religious community, it is useful to explore the nature of violence. Not to condone it, but to remind ourselves that it is something that is done by people of many faiths and walks of life rather than being the domain of the poor or the Aboriginal as seems to be suggested by one journalist 1 this week, or intrinsic to Edom as suggested in Midrash relating to our reading this week of Vzot Habracha. 2

Let us define violence broadly as doing something that causes distress to another creature. I engaged in “violence” this week against a perceived threat, a male Brush Turkey who decided to create a mount for himself in my backyard. I believed, falsely, that they are very territorial creatures who might harm my two year old daughter. I began my battle to get rid of it. I got on the internet to gather intelligence against my “enemy” and learned that these are determined creatures that will not go quietly. I spent two hours under the cover of darkness, reclaiming my land. I covered his mound with a sack and other stuff. I cleared excess leaves and watched him pace the next day, as our battle of wills played out.

I was wrong about the Brush Turkey. A knowledgeable friend persuaded me that my next planned step, putting down chicken wire would be very cruel. He told me that they are not territorial. They will come for a few months, lay eggs in the mound then go away. He also suggested that I was the colonizer as “they were here before us”. So I removed the impediments to the mound making. Now I am getting a lot of pleasure watching this amazing natural process play out as this energetic creature builds his mount by flicking leaves backwards, for hours on end.

As I reflect on my battle with my new friend. I notice how quickly people can be moved to perceive a threat and seek to eliminate it. The thinking can be focused on how to conquer the enemy instead of exploring how we might be able to coexist. Yet, unfortunately, not all conflicts are so easily resolvable. There are real enemies. These are not monsters. They are people that are essentially like me who are up against something they think threatens them or something precious to them.

This is one way for me to think about an implied message in the Torah reading this week that killing even family members is virtuous. Moses says of Levi. “The one who says of his father and mother, I did not see them, and his brother he did not recognise and his children he did not know”. 3 This is taken to mean that he was willing to kill his relatives who worshiped the Golden Calf, including his grandchildren. 4

I  Find this particularly disturbing in light of the following. In the final moments of Moses’ life, he blesses all but one of the Jewish tribes, 5 the one tribe that is left out in Simeon. This is the second time that all are blessed except for Simeon. Jacob’s deathbed blessings to almost all his sons instead contained a curse of Simeon’s and his Brother Levi’s anger because of their massacre of the inhabitants of the city of Shchem. However when Moses does his blessings, Levi is blessed while only Simeon misses out. One way of explaining this is that both brothers were like “borrowers” when they massacred the people of Shchem. However Simeon did not redeem himself, 6 Levi did redeem themselves in their conduct during the golden calf, which might be about the fact that they showed their loyalty by not worshiping the calf, but of course they also demonstrated their loyalty by the very disturbing killing in the previous paragraph.

To fight is not glorious although sometimes a decision is made that to fight is necessary to protect that which one cherishes. I recently attended a ceremony, alongside an Australian Sheikh of Turkish descent at Australia’s War Memorial. We heard about the personal sacrifices by young men who gave away most of their lives and about families who lost multiple members. Dr. Brendan Nelson, who spoke to our group, told us that the miserable business of war was ultimately about; love of country, about loyalty to “mates” and that our ability to live our lives in freedom is a result of their sacrifice. I was moved by the speaker. Yet, I am also aware of the temptation to minimize the brutal consequences of war on the “enemy”, the non-combatants caught in the cross fire, the psychologically damaged soldiers who suffer for years after the war in addition to “our soldier-martyrs” who lost their lives.
Violence is a complex business. We must continue to strive against it. It is a fight worth getting into, with compassion and determination.

Notes
1.    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-demonising-men-wont-stop-domestic-violence/story-fni0cwl5-1227545469411
2.    The verse states “God came from Sinai, and shined from Seir” (Deuteronomy 33:2), which is linked in Me’am Loez to a Midrashic story that God offered the Torah to various nations including Edom but was turned down. In the case of Edom, they refused to accept the Torah because of the prohibition of killing which the Midrash sees as being very much part of the nature of Edom.  Essentialising is one key element of prejudice which sees the person not as an individual human being to be taken as they are.
3.    Deuteronomy 33:9
4.    Rashi based on earlier sources, more specifically it is relates to them being willing to kill their grandfathers, half-brothers and grandchildren who worshiped the golden calf. Klei Yakar interprets this as a reference to the dedication to Torah study at the expense of family as the sage Rabba states in the Talmud (Eruvin 44) that Torah is found in one who is cruel to his children like a Raven and Rav Ada Bar Matna dismissed his wife’s concern when she asked him question “what will be with our young children?” as he was preparing to leave to study at the academy of Rav. He replied “there are plenty of greens in the meadow" Talmud Eruvin 22a, a variation of the theme of acting harshly to protect something, in this case one’s learning
5.    Deuteronomy 33:6-25
6.    Sifre 33:8, Ibn Ezra relates this to their idol worship and sinning with the daughters of Moab. The sin in this case was not that of Simeon alone, however it was predominantly members of this tribe that were implicated. This can be seen by the dramatic decline in the number of people of the tribe of Simeon in the census at the end of the book of numbers (26:14), 22,200 in comparison to the number of members of this tribe in the earlier census at the beginning of the book of numbers (1:23) 59,300.

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

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