Submission Season: Chukat & Korach

On Monday morning, Sheikh Ahmed, my team and I discussed submission and assertiveness with Western Sydney, Lebanese Muslim, teenage boys who were fasting as part of Ramadan. Just before this month of fasting began, I joined a priest on a panel with Soner Coruhlu, another sheikh, who explained the spiritual side of fasting. He put fasting in the context of the inner struggle between the ego and emotions, on the one hand, and submission to God and following higher callings on the other.

In Western culture, we seem to value asserting oneself rather than submission. In Australian culture, we celebrate egalitarianism and irreverence. At the same time, these boys, like everyone else, are expected to submit to the rule of law and the obligations of citizenship.  We talked about the Magna Carta - how even governments must submit to the authority of the courts, and rule in a way that respects the rights of the people.

On Monday night, a Muslim man, a self-confessed “idiot at times (1)”, asserted on national television that the government “just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL (2)”. This has predictably caused outrage in the Australian media, and inflamed tensions. Living with people with diverse needs and standards, it is necessary to consider carefully how and when we either assert ourselves or submit to the will of others. 

I have been thinking about the limits of a self-assertive approach. In the course of my work, I found myself confronted by a person who defied my guidance.  He told a personal story, with a political reference, to a group of students in a context in which this was inappropriate.  When I gently pointed out to him what I thought was his oversight, he asserted his own view and told me that the political aspect of his story was intentional.  The fact that I am a leader in the field of cross-cultural bridge-building, counted for nothing. Unfortunately, he saw no need to accept any guidance.  In contrast to this, I shared an anecdote with the boys about how I submitted to the guidance of an Aboriginal elder, which, although hard at the time, I am very happy about after the fact.

In the current Torah readings, there is a strong message about submission. Last week, we read an extreme story promoting the virtue of “followership”: a man, named Korach, who refused to submit to the authority of Moses, was swallowed up by the earth as punishment (3). 

This week, we read about a ritual involving the slaughter and burning of a red cow, as a means of purification, after contact with death (4).  Death can be interpreted as symbolic - being completely disconnected from God (5). The ritual of the red cow is seen as a commandment without any rational explanation that we are forbidden “to think about”, or question (6).

This red cow had to be one that had never borne a yoke (7). The yoke is a potent symbol representing submission to God’s demands, just as an ox would accept the burden placed on its shoulders and comply with the demand to pull a plough. This symbolism can be interpreted in two opposite ways. Firstly, it can be interpreted that the Jews had thrown off the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, so they needed atonement through an animal that was likewise without a yoke (8).  Alternatively, it could be interpreted as atonement by the Jews for their inappropriate submission to the golden calf (9) - they accepted its yoke, and would now be redeemed by a yoke-less and, perhaps, symbolically assertive cow.

One of the interesting questions raised by one of the boys during the discussion, was whether it should still be considered as submission if one wants to submit. The sheikh and I both thought the answer is yes.

In the process of the preparation of the red cow, there is a high level of intentionality. The burning must be done “before his eyes (10)”: the priest must not be involved in any other task (11), but continue to look until the animal is reduced to ashes (12). One could not perform the ritual with two cows simultaneously as this would divide the attention of the priest (13). If a high priest performed this ritual, he would have to remove his regular, elaborate garments, including the breast plate with the diamonds inscribed with the names of the tribes, and perform the ritual wearing simple, white garments.  His thoughts must be focused on this ritual (14). Submission is not about the self being absent, nor is it about being weak and just caving in or shutting down. Instead, we are called to submit mindfully.  This is what happens in loving relationships between parents and children, and husbands and wives. The Torah points to broader applications of this gracious way of being. 

There will be times when assertiveness is the correct stance. There are other times that call for some give and grace. A season for submission is an opportunity to highlight this.

1)    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/zaky-mallah-i-stand-by-what-i-said-on-qa-the-public-needs-to-hear-it
2)    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/zaky-mallahs-qa-comments-a-wakeup-call-for-radicalisation-debate-20150623-ghv29p.html#ixzz3dvhW9SxY
3)    Numbers 16
4)    Numbers 19:1-14
5)      Schneerson, Rabbi MM, Likutei Sichos, Vol 4, p.1058
6)      Rashi
7)      Numbers 19:2
8)      Bamidbar Zuta, from a manuscript, cited in Kasher, R. Menachem, Torah Shlaima, vol. 11, p. 25
9)      Midrash Agadah cited in Kasher, R. Menachem, Torah Shlaima, vol. 11, p. 23
10)      Numbers 19:5
11)      Ralbag, p.97 Mosad Rav Kook edition
12)      Sifrei Zuta,
13)      Ralbag, based on Tosefta
14)      Ralbag

Wavering Leader

I am the designated positive guy, the one who is supposed to maintain a positive attitude about “the other” and inspire others, but I don’t always feel inspired or positive. I grapple with the questions about the merits and prospects for success of my work bringing together Jews, Muslims, Christians and others. Of course this is ok, but it is worth thinking about again and draw inspiration from a great wavering leader, Moses.

One evening in the early 90’s in Boston, I was sitting with my family at a New England Lubavitz Yeshiva, fund-raising dinner that is honouring my grandfather Rabbi Joshua T. Kastel. I was in my twenties considering what I wanted to do with my life.

A wealthy donor of the school spoke about the first time my grandfather came to his office to ask for a donation for his school. The speakers father had been a donor and had passed away, now my grandfather was hoping the son would follow his father’s example.

The speaker saw my grandfather through the window. “Rabbi Kastel walked toward the building, then he hesitated, stopped, turned around and walked a few steps away. Then he turned around and walked toward the building again. Stopped again...he was nervous. But he really had nothing to worry about, we all loved him”.  

Photo by
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpmatth/with/2591817870/

used under general permission see link below

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

According to the Midrash, my grandfather’s hesitation echoed the wavering of Moses himself. The Torah tells us that after God charged Moses with demanding freedom for the Israelites, “He was on the road, in the hotel (and God met him and sought to kill him)[i]”. The Midrash[ii] states that “Moses was entering and exiting the hotel to the road and from the road to the hotel, he was ruminating in his mind and saying if he will go to Egypt to redeem Israel or not...[iii]”

One of the first doubts for Moses is when he sees two Israelites fighting each other and is afraid that perhaps they are not deserving of redemption[iv]. When Moses is called to challenge the system in Egypt he doubts his own ability, his speech defect as well as the likelihood of success and tries five times[v] to avoid this frightful responsibility.

Soon after, he is confronted with failure as the situation deteriorates[vi] and a loss of confidence by his own people.  Moses, now has a much greater problem. “Indeed the Israelites did not listen to me, and how will Pharaoh listen to me?[vii]” Moses is understood to be making the point that as a leader he draws his strength from the Israelites, his core constituency, if they are not prepared to back him, how will have the credibility with Pharaoh[viii]?  

There are two messages here. One is for me or any other leader, at times we will find that we don’t have the support of our own side, and this will make it harder to advocate externally. Unlike the suggestion of the speaker about my grandfather, not everyone is going to love a leader who is pursuing a controversial path. Moses went from a childhood in which he was loved, kissed and hugged by the princess and Grandpa Pharaoh[ix], to being ignored by the people he was sent to save. It’s tough. We need to keep at it.  The second message is to us as prospective followers; our leaders are often only as strong as the support we give them. 

---

[i]     Exodus 4:24,

[ii]    Midrash is not necessarily understood as factual

[iii]   Midrash Aggada, cited in Torah Shlaima Shemot p.197, it asks the question about the language in the text; "Was he on the road or at the hotel?"

[iv]   Midrash Tanchuma 10, Shemot Rabba 1:35

[v]    1) Exodus 3:11, 2) 3:13, 3) 4:1, 4) 4:10 and 5) 4:13

[vi]   Exodus 5:4-21

[vii]  Exodus 6:12

[viii] Sfas Emes,

[ix]   Shemot Rabba 1:31

Authority, Compliance, Defiance – Hazare, Gaddafi & the “Malaysia Solution” Shoftim

I have seriously revised this post, after writing the first version of this. We had a great discussion on Shabbat afternoon at Chabad House about dissent. Added a whole bunch of new sources. Also learned some things from the other participats in our group today. Thanks to loyal attendees. Here is the link,  http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com/2011/09/dissent-when-you-think-authority-is.html

There was a moment in my working life when I was ordered to act against my own conscience, this infuriated me. I thank God I was able to stand my ground.



Photo by Josh Lopez Used with General Permission

In recent days we have witnessed the capture of Gaddafi’s compound, the cave-in of the Indian Government to a hunger striker and in Australia, the successful challenge of our Government’s strategy to transfer Asylum seekers to Malaysia in the courts. My Muslim friends have celebrated their Eid festival on two different days this week, only some of them in compliance with the Australian Imam’s Council. Regardless of what one thinks about each of these cases, I think, that just as defying authority is noble in some situations, there are times when falling into line is wise, pragmatic, or just plain right. It is a good time to consider what the Torah has to say on the topic.

Value of authority

We are commanded, judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice[i]. Clearly the value of maintaining order is high.

Even if they are wrong?

One view is that we only obey the sages if they are correct. We are instructed to come to the priests, the Levites and the judge that will be in that time...you will do according to the word they tell you...you shall not turn from what they tell you to the right of to the left[ii]. This is interpreted by the Jerusalem Talmud to mean that you must only obey them when they get it right, and declare right to be right but not when they tell you that right is left[iii].

This same phrase is interpreted in the exact opposite way by Rashi. He takes it to mean that even if he tells you about right, that it is left and that left is right...[iv] This staggering statement essentially says that if the religious authority instructs you to do the wrong thing you should do it anyway. According to one view in the Talmud if the dissenter has a tradition that something must be done one way and the majority asserts that they see it differently if he acts on his view he is killed so that there should not increase disputes among Israel[v].

The most challenging for me is the explanation by the Ramban. He lived over 1000 years since Jewish law courts had the authority to preside over capital cases, so his talk about killing an innocent person had no bearing on practical on actual decision making. With this disclaimer in place, let us explore his words. “Even if you will think in your heart that they are mistaken and this matter is a simple in your eyes as your knowledge between your right and your left you should act according to their command. You should not say how can I eat this completely forbidden fat or (how can I) kill this innocent person. But you should say this is what I have been commanded by the master who commands me about all the commandments that I should do his commands in accordance with what I will be guided by those who stand before him...even if they err...[vi]. I have to assume that this very different to the Nuremberg defence of “I was just following orders”, perhaps the distinction is between religious and secular orders but I have don’t find that a compelling difference.     

Are they really wrong?

Another approach is both more comfortable and confronting. In this view, you only think you are right, but in fact the majority is right and you are wrong. The original phrase that Rashi quotes is even if it seems to you (that he tells you about) right, that it is left and that left is right, listen to them. [vii]Or this interpretation, if he tells you about right, which you thinks is left, or about left which you think is right you should listen to him and not attribute the mistake to them, instead attribute the mistake to yourself. ...Because God will protect them from all errors so that (nothing but) the truth will come out of their mouths[viii]. The overall effect of these ideas is while you are not being asked to do something that is really wrong, you are being told to dismiss your our own views and trust that the authority has got it right. Ouch.

Relativism?

Another explanation is that being that these are matters of logic, there cannot be a “right and left”.[ix]. I understand this to be bringing in the principle that matters of logic are open to debate and are not to be thought of absolutes.

Corruptible Sages

The idea that the sages will be given divine assistance never to get it wrong must be considered alongside other teachings that warn of the corruptibility of all people including the greats. Do not believe in yourself until the day of your death[x]! The judge is warned not take bribes because the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and ruin the words of the righteous[xi]. Similarly, The Holy One Blessed be He does not called a righteous person, righteous until he has been put in the grave. Why? Because all the days of his life he is beset by the evil inclination and God does not trust him in this world till the day of his death[xii].

                                                                 

Corruption by the King Makers

There is also concern about the influence of the people who are the powers behind the throne who might retain an influence after installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse quoted above is instructive. judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice[xiii]. We start with an imperative instruction to the people to תתן appoint judges, this refers to people who are in a position of influence who can help select and appoint the judges. Then the language shifts to talk about what will happen “they will judge, justly” as if by themselves with the appointers out of the picture. This hints at the need for complete independence of the judiciary from the king makers, because if they remain dependent on those people there will never be justice[xiv]. No naïve assumptions of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness.

Civil Disobedience

Despite the strong guidance about the need to obey the sages, obeying political leaders is quite a different matter[xv]. This is especially true with the midwives in Egypt who defied the evil king Pharaoh’s order to kill Jewish baby boys[xvi]. Even the generally righteous King Saul could get it wrong and his guards are seen to have done the right thing by refusing to obey his orders to kill priests in the city of Nov[xvii]. Maimonides makes it very clear that when a King’s instructions contradict those of the Torah, the king is to be disobeyed[xviii]. This follows the Talmudic idea, “the words of the teachers and the words of the students, which is to be obeyed?[xix]”  

Conclusion

There is value in the preservation of authority but this is not an absolute value. There are certainly situations where human authority is overridden. Is Hana Hazare acting appropriately by fighting corruption or wrongly by holding democratic institutions to ransom? I am not across the details of that situation, nor do I have much more to contribute to the other instances I mentioned of defiance of the powers that be. I am still challenged by the sources I have gathered about this whole issue from Torah sources. Further study would be useful as this topic is far from closed for me.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 16:18

[ii] Deuteronomy 17:9-11

[iii] Jerusalem Talmud Horiyos 1:1

[iv] Rashi on 17:11

[v] Talmud, Sanhedrin 88a, the view of Rabbi Elazar

[vi] Ramban on 17:11

[vii] Sifre

[viii] Sifse Chachamim

[ix] Sifse Chachamim

[x] Pirkey Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 2:5

[xi] Deuteronomy 16:19

[xii] Midrash Socher Tov 61a, cited in Weiss, Rabbi S, (1990) Insights: A Talmudic Treasury, Feldheim, Jerusalem,  p.41

[xiii] Deuteronomy ibid

[xiv] Klei Yakar

[xv] The material in this paragraph is based on the work of Amsel, N, (1996) The Jewish Encyclopaedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, Jason Aronson, Northvale NJ, USA, p.43

[xvi] Exodus 1:15-19

[xvii] Samuel I, 22:16-17

[xviii] Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, laws of Kings 3:9

[xix] Talmud, Kiddushin 42b

Guilt, Pride, Rats and thoughts for my friend the next premier of NSW

While the state of NSW prepares for an election where the next premier will be certainly be an Irish Catholic[i] "friend" of mine, Jews continue to read about sacrifices in the yearly Torah reading cycle. Among the varied purposes of sacrifices, one is to make sinners more aware of the seriousness of their sin, particularly accidental sins[ii]. In a society that sees guilt as a very bad thing, this post seeks to explore what guidance Torah offers on this issue for all of us and particularly political leaders.

The case against wallowing in guilt can be based on it's consequences. If people sees themselves as wicked they will either feel depressed and be prevented from serving God with joy, or if they remain cheerful in spite despite their perceived wickedness they will come to callousness[iii]. While some would think that religion wants people to be miserable, Hasidim say that feeling depressed is not a sin, but it can be more damaging than any sin. R. Shneur Zalman likens the spiritual struggle of life to a wrestling match. If one of the fighters is sluggish and miserable, he will easily be overpowered by his opponent. He argues that one must seek ideas to rid oneself of sadness relating to shortcomings in spiritual matters, except in certain set times[iv].  

On the other side of this argument, we learn that regret about past misdeeds is critical to addressing   them and personal redemption. One difference between a completely wicked person and a “Wicked person with some good[v]” is that (some of)  “the wicked are filled with regrets”. King David speaks movingly about his regret about the incident with Bat-Sheba when he says “my sin is always before me[vi]”.

Two of the types of sacrifices offered in the temple related to sin, the Chatat and Asham. The Zohar talks about the verse “the sacrifices of God, are the broken spirit[vii]”.  “I heard from the holy luminary, that when a person comes to be defiled in his sins he brings the spirit of impurity upon himself…when the temple stood, a person brought a sacrifice and his atonement was left hanging until he becomes regretful and breaks the spirit from the spirit of impurity. If the spirit of impurity is not broken the sacrifice is nothing and it is given away to the dogs[viii]”.

It can be argued that personal failings might be an asset to a leader, perhaps helping her/him understand the challenges of the people they seek to lead[ix]. The Talmud seems to be suggesting just that when it asks “Why did the Kingdom of the house of Saul the son of Kish, not continue? Because he had no “taint” or reproach[x]”. This is contrasted with David who had some type of skeleton in his closet. The Talmud asserts that we do not appoint an administrator of the community  unless he has a box of rodents hanging on his back[xi]”.This is so that if he became arrogant he can be told to turn around.

The theme of humility seems to compete with messages of Kings or leaders asserting themselves.  We have the commandment that a King must write a Torah scroll for himself so that his heart is not elevated above his brothers. On the other hand, we are taught “every scholar who does not take revenge and holds grudges like a snake is not a scholar”[xii]. This surprising teaching is challenged by the commandment “do not take revenge and do not hold a grudge[xiii]”. And the teaching that “those who are embarrassed but don't embarrass others and do not reply, acts out of love and rejoice in suffering, it is about them that the verse states “those he loves like when the sun comes out in it's strength[xiv]”the conclusion is that depends on whether the scholar is appeased, and if the offender asked for forgiveness[xv]. This offers an interesting mix of advice to our leaders, with some thoughts our next premier might want to consider.

Cynics might question the sincerity of the politicians’ friendship I referred to. After all, we are taught, “Be careful with the ruling authorities, as they don't bring a person close except for their own purpose, they seem like loving friends at the time when it is for their benefit, but do not stand by a man in his time of pressure[xvi]”. I trust that be it Barry or Kristina, they will defy the trend to the best of their ability. My prayers are with them to navigate the challenges of the coming days and weeks.

---

[i] Observation by NSW Premier Kristina Keneally at St. Patricks day celebration that with two candidates one named Keneally and the other O'Farrel the winner of the election will be Irish. I have had several friendly conversations with the present premier and the opposition leader and consider them friends in the broad sense of the word.

[ii] Rema, Torat HaOla, chapter 1, cited in Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p265, ”that a person should be careful to avoid accidental sins, because he will see that he will be punished with his money because of his accidental sin, because also one who sins accidentally is called a sinner because a person is always a Muad (completely responsible, as opposed to the owner of a goring ox, whose ox is declared a “Tam”, and must only pay ½ the cost of damages caused the first three times before it's problematic nature is established).

[iii] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 1

[iv] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 26

[v] As reflected in the concept of Rashah Vra Lo, vs Rasha Vtov Lo.

[vi]  Psalm 51

[vii]  Psalm 51

[viii]  Zohar Pinchas 203, in Torah Shlaima vol.25, p 275

[ix] R. Itamar B. Yisroel, Mishmeret Itamar, Beshalach, cited in Weiss, S. (1990), Insights A Talmudic Treasury, Feldheim, Jerusalem, Israel  p.32

[x]     Talmud Yoma 22b following translation by Jastrow, M. (1989), A Dictionary, Judaica Press New York

[xi]    Talmud Yoma 22b

[xii]   Talmud Yoma 23a

[xiii]  Leviticus 19:18

[xiv] Judges 5, Talmud Shabbat 88b

[xv]  Rashi on Yoma 23a

[xvi] Pirkey Avot (Chapters of the Fathers) 2:3

Authority Trashed, Tucson & Tunisia – problems and opportunities of democracy of opinion

In rejecting elitism and in pursuit of freedom, we now face the idea that all opinions, not just people, are of equal value. Is this the democratisation of opinion combined with a breakdown in authority a contributing factor to the madness in the world?

I have not listened to the ramblings of the Tucson murderer yet I feel quite comfortable to assert my view about this. Asserting a view, no matter how ill-considered and regardless of qualification to do so is socially acceptable. In this post, I will mostly stick to what I know and write about attitudes to authority, equality and thinking as these are discussed in the Torah.

Legitimacy of Government Authority

When Jethro, Moses' father in law notices how Moses is wearing himself out he suggests the appointment of a judicial system of men of accomplishment, God fearing, men of truth, who hate bribery[1]. A system of authority is created in the desert. We are instructed to “pray for the welfare of government because if not for its fear, men would swallow each other a live[2]”.

The inequality in free societies is a terrible injustice, but to make the jump to government and police just being there to protect the rich is untrue and unfair. If the cops are so evil, why don’t their radical critics move to parts of Mexico, where tragically people can be shot up at whim, with no protection from the law? 

Limits of legitimacy

The toppling of a dictator in Tunisia this week reflects the reality that authority is not always a good thing. The Torah warns Jewish kings to write a Torah scroll and carry it with him so "That his heart not become haughty over his brethren.”[3] A judge is warned against judging alone[4]. The classic story of the Iconoclastic, young Abraham, smashing his father’s idols and rejecting the gods accepted by all, including the elites tell us that we cannot simply trust the elders or the government to get it all right. Our law addresses the scenario of a government that is no better than a thief and a thug, but this exception to the principle of “the law of the rule is law” has strictly defined criteria, such as a king whose rule has not been accepted by the people[5] or who does not comply with his own laws[6].

Submission to non- ideal

Authority does not need to be perfect to be seen as legitimate.  There is plenty of realism, perhaps even cynicism in our tradition about government. “Be careful with the authorities, as they do not draw a person close to them for any reason but for their own needs, seems like they love you when it is for their pleasure, but do not stand by a man when he is pressed”.[7]  In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, we are taught, that we need to submit to the judge that is available to us in a given time, even if he is not of the stature of greater leaders. “Like Yiftah in his generation, like Samuel in his generation[8]”. The erosion of legitimate authority is not consistent with the teachings of Judaism.

Wisdom of the Elders

Our tradition would lead toward the privileging of wisdom and intellectual rigour over the democratisation of opinion. In an inversion of ageism, we are advised not to discriminate against the young, “Please pleasant to the black haired[9]” so strongly would we naturally defer to the wisdom that comes with age that we need to ensure we don’t dismiss someone because of their youth. One activist recently reflected, “Our defiant motto was “don’t trust anyone over thirty”…this motto deprives us of much wisdom[10]”.

And all the people saw the thunder, and the lightning, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking and when the people saw it they moved and stood afar[11]. The people stood far away only saw the external trappings, the thunder and lightning, while Moses entered into the thick cloud were God was[12].

Following your heart

My pet hate is the expression; “I feel that”. Shouldn't it be, 'I think that'?! Unless, we don't need to think any more, we can decide everything by intuition, and just follow our hearts. There is a time for everything, Rabbi YY Schneerson's portrayal of the arrogant self described “kop mentch”, who is cold about everything and refuses to get excited is a devastatingly accurate description that shows why there are some times when we should indeed follow our heart. In fact, one great quality of our animal-like aspect is our ability to get excited and do good things because we feel that they are right and we avoid making all the calculations that might prevent us from doing it[13]. Perhaps, 'feeling that' is useful some times, but dangerous at other times.       

Believing in yourself vs. Humility

It is one of the few rules left, you must believe in yourself. Our tradition tells us, do not believe in yourself until the day you die[14]. While in Tunisia, backing one’s own judgement gave people courage to pursue justice, in Tucson the mad murderer might have hesitated if he grew up with the values of deference and humility. God desired an altar of earth, not silver or gold[15].  If only he could have learned the interpersonal insight that it is ridiculous to think that “davka” according to his own mind is the truth[16].  Instead, a culture of worship of self and an unwillingness to give any credit to the legitimacy of established norms might have contributed to a sick mind giving itself permission to kill people, justified in part on some hair brained ideas dumped on the internet about grammar and government control.

Torah of course believes in absolute Truth, which some people will not embrace. Still there is wisdom in assuming that ‘the truth is out there’, so even if one is not sure about peoples’ ability to find the truth, there are some truths worth embracing. One of these is to learn from a young age to honour one’s imperfect father and mother, doing so impacts on the ability to respect God, because if we can respect our the creators of our own bodies, surely we can respect “our father in heaven[17]”.

In the end, we need to learn to be realistic and question authority, resist it when it is seriously out of line and humbly submit to it when appropriate.

---

[1] Exodus 18:21.

[2] Pirkey Avot 3:2

[3] Deuteronomy  17:20

[4] Pirkey Avot 4:8

[5] Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law), Choshen Mishpat, 369:2

[6] Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law), Choshen Mishpat, 369:8

[7] Pirkey Avot, 2:3

[8] Talmud, Rosh Hashana 25b

[9] Pikey Avot 3:12

[10] Nagler, M, (2011) Apologies and Advice: A Letter to Younger Activists ,Tikkun Winter, p.58

[11] Exodus 20:18

[12] Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk –in Greenberg, A.Y., (1992) Torah Gems, Y Orenstien-Yavneh Publishing House, Tel Aviv Israel.

[13] Sefer Hamaamorim Kuntreisim Alef, Maamar Naaseh Na Aliyas Kir Ketana, by R,fd YY Schneerson

[14]  Pirkey Avot 2:5

[15]  Klei Yakar on Exodus 20:22

[16]  Heichaltzu, Maamar of Rabbi Shalom Dov Ber of Lubavitch

[17]  Klei Yakar on Exodus 20:12, Ramban follows a similar interpretation