Jewish appreciation of non-Jewish people’s spirit – the case of Joseph’s brothers’ guilty talk

In this post I reflect on Judaism’s teachings about how to relate to non-Jewish people with a new argument for appreciation.

I write this reflection in the Crown Heights area of Brooklyn, New York. I am here celebrating with all my siblings both my son’s wedding and my mother’s 80^th birthday. While walking around Crown Heights during my visit now, I have noticed an apparently pleasant and easy coexistence between Jewish people and blacks. This is different to what I remember.

When I grew up in Crown Heights, I heard a lot of historical stories about non-Jewish persecution of Jews, pogroms and blood libels. I also felt contempt, animosity toward and fear of our non-Jewish black and Hispanic neighbours. These feelings about people that we had little understanding of were also related to muggings, burglaries and even murder. A young Jewish man named Avrohom Eliezer Goldman was murdered mere meters away from my current temporary accommodation on Montgomery Street[i]. I attended his funeral in 1977 as a seven-year-old boy. I still remember the heart-rending recitation of psalms and the crowd. It was not easy for anyone then.

Putting aside judgement of our community at the time, it is a fact that with one exception[ii], as I grew up, I had a consistent sense of a generalised negative attitude to non-Jewish people. There was no basis for me to admire the virtues of non-Jewish people, their compassion or altruism or how faith might move them to such stances.

This week I learned something in relatively recent Jewish commentaries about the story of the Biblical Joseph’s brothers that supports a more respectful approach (for readers who want more details of the story, see [iii] below).

Years after Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, they met again during a time of famine when they sought to purchase scarce food in Egypt. However, Joseph’s brothers did not recognise him in the Egyptian viceroy he had become, but Joseph recognised them. In this role, Joseph had them thrown into prison, on false charges of espionage, a parallel to their depriving him of his freedom all those years earlier. After three days, he offered to allow all of them, except one hostage, to go home.

It is at this point of the story that Joseph’s brothers finally express guilt over what they had done to Joseph. “They said … but we are guilty, on account of our brother, because we looked on, at the anguish of his soul, yet we did not listen, as he pleaded with us. That is why this distress has come upon us.”[iv]

What led them to this epiphany at this particular time and not before, even during the three days of their imprisonment?[v] It was their reflection on the Egyptian ruler’s statement: “Do this and you shall live, for I fear God. If you are being honest [and you are not spies], let one of your brothers be held in your place of detention, while the rest of you go and take home rations for your starving households.”

The brothers thought: “If this man who is not ‘from our faith’ is moved by faith in God to show mercy for our starving families, who are strangers to him, whose suffering he did not see, should we not feel regret for the way we treated our own brother, whose suffering we did see, as he pleaded with us?”[vi]

Of course, Joseph was not actually a person of another faith. Yet, the fact that the commentary has the brothers acknowledging the way an apparently non-Jewish person’s faith in God guided him to compassion is a source text for greater recognition of the ways that non-Jewish people are moved to altruism. I hope it helps encourage greater appreciation by Jewish people of non-Jewish people.

 

---

[i] https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/14/archives/three-sought-in-killing-of-hasidic-rabbis-son.html

[ii] The case of Dama Ben Netina, a non-Jewish man who excels in honouring his father.

[iii] A summary of the story told in Genesis, Chapters 37-50.
Jacob had twelve sons but favoured his second youngest Joseph. He gave him a special coat. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him and intended to kill him, but in the end sold him into slavery.

Joseph was taken to Egypt, where he was a slave. He was subsequently falsely accused of seducing his master’s wife and was thrown into prison. Directly, from prison he was surprisingly appointed to high office after interpreting troubling dreams for the Pharoah. As the second highest official in Egypt, Joseph – now with a new Egyptian name, Tzafnat Paneach - orchestrated a program of food storage to prepare for famine.

When all his brothers except for the youngest, Benjamin, travelled to Egypt to access some of the surplus food during the famine it was an opportunity for Joseph to meet his brothers. They did not recognise him, but he recognised them.

Joseph-Tzafnat - accused his brothers of being spies and told them that they would only prove their innocence if they brought their youngest brother Benjamin with them. After imprisoning them for three days, he released nine of them to return home with food to their hungry families but kept one, Simeon as a hostage to compel them to bring Benjamin.

When Benjamin arrived, Joseph contrived to have evidence of theft planted in Benjamin’s bag. This presented an opportunity for the brothers to demonstrate loyalty to Benjamin and complete their repentance for their betrayal of Joseph. When the brothers passed this test, Joseph reconciled with his brothers.    

[iv] Genesis 42:21

[v] Toldot Yitzchot and Maasei Hashem quoted in Tzeda Lederech by Yisocher Ben Eilenberg, in Chumash with 11 Meforshei Rashi

[vi] Be’er Hatorah and both in Chumash with 11 Meforshei Rashi

 

Norman Rothfield Dissent for Peace Justice and Dignity for All -Parshat Korach

Disclaimer: In this blog post I wrote about a man who dedicated himself to the needs and rights of his fellow man both within and beyond his community, as he understood them. I request that readers do not infer an endorsement of every political opinion that this passionate and prolific man stood for. It is not my intention to say anything other than what I wrote below. Zalman

Arno Michaelis is a former white supremacist leader, with tattoo covered arms - turned peace advocate. Arno walked into a Sydney Kosher restaurant to join me for lunch recently. He struck me as a passionate, joyful man. Soon after he was seated, he requested the super hot Yemenite spice called Srug, which he clearly loves. Over lunch, Arno quipped that he enjoyed “pissing people off”. “It is what led me to those activities back then...''. And “I still do…” he said. “Recently, I had 400 kids singing Salaam/Shalom in Arabic and Hebrew at an event in Milwaukee, I know it really infuriates the extreme right”. Arno clarified to me that although he has some “contrarian tendencies...I'm not contrary to people. I'm contrary to the ideas that found violent extremism, be they from either side of the political spectrum, or racial, or religious. My opponents are ideological and spiritual illnesses, not the human beings stricken by them”.

I have been reading the memoirs of the late Australian Jewish peace and social justice advocate, Norman Rothfield. In contrast to Arno’s comment to me, which appeared to make light of the hostility of his old peers, Norman expressed sadness about the loss of old friendships. He wrote that “...more painful was the attitudes of a few long-standing friends. Invitations gradually came to an end, to some homes we had visited for thirty years or more” (1).

I am intrigued by the motivations of those who get involved in communal affairs. Perhaps this is due to the influence of the Muslims that I work with, who emphasise intentions. Rothfield shared two key motivations in his book. One was personal; while growing up, he was confronted with his father’s “neglect of Mother... his failure to share responsibility and his vile temper”. There was a severe shortage of money and young Norman was disturbed by the unjust way that his father dealt with this. When his mother asked for money to pay the bills, his father “would lose his temper...he would accuse mother of incompetence and extravagance, which was nonsense. Her personal 'extravagance’, compared with his, was trivial… He had dozens of perfectly tailored suits…” Norman’s father would angrily “storm about, bang doors, then get in his car and disappear. I would then find my mother weeping bitterly, and moaning ‘what can I do?’” (2). These experiences led him to develop a determined approach to organising and acting against injustice.

A second motivation was a passion for justice, with deep roots in his Jewish tradition. While Norman lost his faith in some of Judaism’s Truth claims, he still embraced its ethical teachings, notably; the pursuit of justice, sensitivity to the wishes of one’s neighbour, and a vision of peace  (3). He rejected the argument that his not believing in the divinity of the Torah meant he had no right to quote the Torah. Indeed, the Torah is the heritage of every Jew (4).

It hurt him that he was falsely accused of being a traitor to his people. His work exemplified the principle “If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I?” (5). He cared passionately and advocated for his fellow Jews, in his work on the Jewish Council to Combat Fascism and Anti-Semitism and many other forums, over decades. However, his concern was not limited to his own people but extended to Palestinians, Aboriginal people and others. Norman called for people in the different communities to “recognise the bravery of the other side and recognise that they need help in reducing tensions” and find common ground between faiths (6). He vehemently rejected the formula of “my side, right or wrong” and courageously spoke his truth, even as he observed others fall silent under pressure to conform (7).

Despite the opposition, and later his advanced age, Norman continued his advocacy. In a touching tribute his son David gave his father at his eightieth birthday, he acknowledged the longevity of his father’s advocacy. “You are old, and for some twenty leap years, you have fought for one cause or another. Can’t you rest on your laurels? Take three jolly cheers and live calmly without any bother?” (8). However, endurance in controversy is linked in our tradition to the purity of motivation (9). This matters, because unlike Rothfield, the Biblical contrarian, Korach was driven by less altruistic instincts such as his arrogance, and lust for honor and money (10). Challenges to communal consensus should be evaluated, at least in part, by the motivations and track record of those offering dissenting views. Rothfield deserves the benefit of the doubt on both counts, with his positive intentions demonstrated in his vast amount of activity in close collaboration with fellow Australian Jewish leaders, over many years.   

Another consideration is timing. Moses tried to slow down the pace of the confrontation between himself and Korach, and suggested that some of it wait until the next morning (11). Their conversation was in the afternoon and at the time wine was a common drink consumed during an afternoon meal. “It is a time of drunkenness”,  Moses told Korach (12). However, Moses was actually hinting at the “drunkenness of controversy” (13) rather than that caused by wine (14). Like the example of Arno at the beginning of this article, contrariness or the drama of conflict can be a motive in fighting against others in a community. This is delicate work that requires the clarity of heart and motivation symbolised by morning. Over lunch, it became clear to me that Arno is overwhelmingly motivated by the joy of embracing and affirming the differences of his fellow human beings, his contrariness being merely secondary.

Notes:

1)     Rothfield, N, (1997), Many Paths to Peace, The Political Memoirs of Norman Rothfield, Yarraford Publications, Melbourne, p.183.

2)     Rothfield, N, (1997), p. 5.

3)     Rothfield, N, (1997), p. 176-177 and in many other parts of the book.

4)     Deuteronomy 33:4.

5)     Hillel in Ethics of the Fathers, 1:14.

6)     Rothfield, N. (1998), The Trial of God, Hudson, Hawthorn, p.226-227.

7)     Rothfield, N, (1997), p. 137.

8)     Rothfield, N, (1997), p. 186.

9)     Ethics of the Fathers, 5:17.

10)  R. Vidal Tzarfati,  quoted in Chida, Torat Hachida, Korach 11, p. 100. See also SHaCh, quoted in Chida, ibid 4, p. 97: Korach was of the tribe of Levi which was the poorest Jewish tribe among those who left Egypt. Eleven of the twelve tribes had been enslaved by the Egyptians, the Levi escaped slavery. Therefore, when members of the eleven tribes saw the riches left by the Egyptians who drowned in the sea, they rightfully helped themselves to these treasures as compensation for unpaid wages. The Levites refrained as they had no rightful claim. Despite the disparity of wealth the Levites were not jealous of the other Jews. There was one exception, Korach, who lusted after money.

11)  Numbers 16:5.

12)  Rashi on Numbers 16:5, based on  Bamidbar Rabbah 18:6.

13)  Mizrachi supercommentary, on Rashi’s commentary to Numbers 16:5.

14)  Isaiah 51:21.

Angry Moses: You spared all the females?! Mattot

Image by Bas Leenders,  used under Creative Commons License
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) 

The words scream accusingly off the page. Moses, himself, raged against the officers of his army returning from a war of vengeance against the nation of Midian. Moses asked rhetorically, “Have you allowed all the females to live?” (1)

I wrote about this two years ago, but the words don’t fail to disturb me anew. How can I reconcile my belief in the inherent worth of all humans, while also affirming the holiness of this sacred text? I don’t have an answer but I still feel compelled to explore and probe this text. First, by providing the context for how this text is read today in contrast with its historical context. Secondly, by reviewing how traditional scholars have responded to the text in their commentary and, finally, by offering a comment of my own.

Context

Judaism does not permit this kind of behaviour today. This was an instruction, for a particular time over 3000 years ago, by the prophet Moses. Jews no longer have prophets and, therefore, no- one has the authority that Moses had (2). Most modern Jews are not aware of this particular passage. As for those who are aware of it, it is understood in more abstract and metaphoric terms. One example of this is the teaching that Midian, who attacked the Jews with no provocation, is symbolic of baseless hatred which we must eradicate from ourselves (3).

The context of the passage above was a battle ordered by God and presented in the text as revenge against the people of Midian. They (and the Moabites) sought to deliberately destroy the Israelites’ spiritual lives, by sending their daughters to seduce Israelite men and then pressure them to worship the false god Peor, thus incurring upon themselves Divine wrath(4). Theirs was a hostile act that attacked our way of life, at its core (5).

While it may still not justify the deeds in this story, we need to recognise the difference in the conditions of war today, among those who adhere to the Geneva Conventions, in contrast with the conditions of all-out war in ancient times. Today, nations can resort to sanctions to deter others from trampling on their rights, or engage in a limited military operation to protect their interests. In order to survive in ancient times, it is argued that you needed to be as cruel as other nations were (6).

Commentary

Disturbingly, from a modern critical perspective, our earliest commentators did not appear at all concerned about Moses’ desire to see the women dead. On the contrary, we find that Moses had asserted that the battle against Midian was God’s revenge, not that of the Israelites because he argued that “if we had been idol worshippers the Midianites would not hate us or pursue us” (7). Because of this perspective, Moses had a great desire to witness the revenge against Midian before he died (8). The Midianites led the Israelites to sin and ‘leading a person to sin is considered more serious than killing him!’ (9).

However, a later commentator read the phrase “have you allowed all the females to live?” not as a complaint that the Israelites did not kill all the women, but that they allowed all the women to live, including those who had been recognised as being the perpetrators, who seduced the Jewish men and then pressured them into worshiping idols (10).

Another argument was advanced that Phineas and the soldiers did not judge the women to be deserving of punishment because they would have been under the control of their husbands and forced into offering their bodies for the war effort (11). In addition, while two nations engaged in these bizarre battle tactics of using women to lead the Israelites to sin, revenge was taken on only one, Midian, while Moab was spared. This is explained by the fact that Moab felt genuinely threatened by the Israelites (12). These commentaries reflect that, at least, some value was placed on the lives of the Israelites’ “enemies” in our tradition.

Comment

My exploration of this text is far from comprehensive. As I did on my blog two years ago, (2), I leave this matter unresolved. I take some comfort from the fact that I am not the first to be concerned about these deeds. Scholars believe that questions were asked at the time and that Moses himself was disturbed and angered by aspects of the killing (13).  A senior editor of Chabad.org wrote that the “war of retribution on the Midianites...sends chills down my spine” (14). He asserts that “Jews are supposed to ask these questions, even if the answers are not satisfactory”. In asking these questions, we emphasise our abhorrence of genocide and racism, and our tendency to read these texts primarily as metaphoric messages about the importance of rejecting senseless hatred and the disruption of the cultural and spiritual lives of others.

Notes

1)       Numbers 31:14-15

2)       https://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/defensive-genocide-wrestling-with.html

3)       The Chasidic discourse known as “Heichaltzu” is a prime example of this.

4)       Numbers 25:18, 31:1-2, read in relation to Numbers 25:1-3

5)       Samson Raphael Hirsch on Numbers 31:3

6)       Rav Kook, Igros Hareia, vol 1, p. 100, cited in Sharki, R. Uri, Jewish Morality in War, Parshat Matot, מוסר יהודי במלחמה , לפרשת מטות - דברי הרב אורי שרקי  http://rotter.net/forum/politics/23960.shtml,

7)       Bereshit Rabba on Matos, 2.

8)       Bereshit Rabba on Matos, 5, also in Midrash Tanchuma

9)       Etz Yosef on Bereshit Rabba on Matos, 5

10)   Seforno on Numbers 31:15

11)   Ohr Hachayim Numbers 31:16. However, in the end this argument was countered by the argument that the women had of their own volition and initiative manipulated the Jewish men to worship the idols, which went further than the acts that they were coerced into by the men.

12)   Ralbag, on Numbers 15, Balak, Toelles 1, Mosad Rav Kook edition, p. 135, and Chizkuni

13)   Chasam Sofer, Klei Yakar on Matos

14)   Freeman, T., http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2494730/jewish/Torah-and-Genocide-FAQ.htm

Dangerously Divisive! Korach & Pauline Hanson

Arguments are raging about how to respond to the election of the divisive anti-Islam senator elect Pauline Hanson. On one hand we are being urged to “listen [to,] not lampoon” Hanson and her voters. We are told that although ‘Hanson’s policies are misconceived’ we can must empathise with the economic pain of Hanson’s rural supporters and to accept that their “fears are natural, and understandable”. I suggested on twitter that ‘dialogue with fearful, resentful people must sit alongside ensuring that bigotry is not made respectable’.

On the other hand, there are very real fears that giving credence to bigotry will have devastating effects. Jarni Blakkarly wrote after the election of Hanson: “A lot of my friends who are people of colour and particularly Muslims are genuinely afraid at the moment.” Last time Hanson was in Parliament she made offensive comments about Aboriginal people and there was an increase in racist incidents in her state to the extent where Aboriginal people reported being afraid to travel on buses. A similar effect is currently being felt on the streets of the UK, as a result of the toxic Brexit rhetoric. Tim Soutphommasane correctly asserted that “We have plenty of examples about how licensing hate can lead to serious violence and ugliness in our streets and our communities ”.

In the Torah reading this week we have the example of Korach, a Biblical figure who challenged Moses’ leadership and threatened the cohesion of the Israelites. Of Korach it is written that ‘A man took a divisive stance and lost part of himself[i]’. There is something profoundly diminishing in the stance of hateful divisiveness. Yet, the threat dividers pose is seen as massive, and must not be underestimated. Shakira Hussein argues that Hansonism is part of an international trend and that those who are supporting the approach “are not just seeking to recapture the past. They’re looking to the future — and they believe that it belongs to them[ii]”. In the case of Korach, God himself intervened and had the earth swallow Korach alive[iii].  This reflects the power of words to undermine societal norms and cohesion. Ridicule of Hansonism and of her as a public figure representing offensive views is appropriate and a legitimate part of the battle of ideas.

Like Hanson challenging the Elites, Korach denied Moses authority as a messenger of God and falsely accused him of haughtiness: holding himself above the people[iv].  Yet, we know that Moses was a reluctant leader and is described in the Torah as a most humble man. In speaking the unspeakable, Korach shook the foundations of his society and emboldened others who wished to break free from the constraints of what was previously considered “correct” speech. In our time, like then, it is important for people to strongly distance themselves from divisive figures or risk being seen as legitimising their views. This is symbolically alluded to in the story of Korach when the people are instructed to physically distance themselves from Korach[v] because tho stand near Korach could be understood to be standing with him and his agenda[vi].

On the other hand there is value in a dialogue with Hanson’s voters, but in a way that does not to amplify their voices. Moses himself talked to some of the rebels and sought to reason with them. Moses send a messenger to two of the other rebels who had not approach him to invite them to meet him for dialogue[vii]. In many ways, Hanson’s voters are people like you and me. Many of them are suffering and have genuine concerns about the future of our country. They also have unacceptable and harmful views that need to be challenged. But the best way to do that is to engage with them in an appropriate way without causing further harm to our society. 

The nature of Korach’s punishment is illustrative of the nature of in-fighting and divisiveness. The ground opened and swallowed Korach alive[viii]. This is the nature of conflict, it is consuming[ix]!  When the Israelites saw Korach consumed as a consequence of the conflict they ran screaming[x], because they said: “lest we also be swallowed”. There is a struggle for hearts and minds and the direction we will take regarding differences. Let us fight hard, compassionately and wisely.

---

[i] Ohr Hachayim, to Numbers 16:1

[ii] https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/07/06/pauline-hanson-product-of-right-wing-bigotry/?activation=success

[iii] Numbers 16:31-33, If I take the story of Korach literally, it troubles me because of what it implies about dissent and challenging authority but I am looking at it in more thematic or Midrashic terms

[iv] Numbers 16:3

[v] Numbers 16:26, Arama, Rabbi Y., cited in Lebovitz, N. Studies in Bamidbar Numbers, Malbim, Hirsch, S.R.,

[vi] Midrash Hagadol cited in Torah Shlaima

[vii] Numbers 16:5-12

[viii] Numbers 16:31-33

[ix] Chafetz Chayim

[x] Numbers 16:34, “screaming” is my creative interpretation/translation of the words in the verse that states “they ran to/for their voices” which is ambiguous. 

Religion vs. Art? Values clash and my name is not Asher Lev

Staying awake all night on the anniversary of revelation is one of many commonalities between Jews and Muslims. I only found out about this on Monday, in a discussion with some Muslim teenagers and a Sheikh. At midnight on Saturday this week,  I will deliver a talk to sleep deprived Jews at my synagogue as part of the all night learning related to the Jewish festival of Shavuot. I plan to focus as much on cultural conflict as commonality, which should keep my listeners awake.

I will reflect on the play My Name is Asher Lev by Chaim Potok that was recently performed in Sydney. Asher Lev is an artist who grew up in a Chasidic family in a fictional setting that is based on the community in which I was raised. The play raised questions about cultural clashes between faith and art. Asher endured intense conflict with his father who he accused of being afflicted with aesthetic blindness. His father saw Asher’s drawing as being, at best a waste of time and at worst a manifestation of the forces of evil, or the “Sitra Achra”, the other side. Asher’s decision to paint nudes against the wishes of his parents led his father to accuse him of moral blindness.

The conflict between the ideals of the Western art world and the world of Chabad Chasidim has been dismissed by one Rabbi, who cited the example of a Chasidic artist who was encouraged by the leader of the Chabad movement, Rabbi Schneerson (known simply as “the Rebbe”). The temptation to minimise cultural differences is a common one, but needs to be resisted, just as it is unhelpful to exaggerate the conflicts. The very real conflict explored in My Name is Asher Lev is the conflict between acceptance of the validity of art as an end in itself with its own valid traditions and a view  that art is merely a humble servant of worship, and must be subject to its restrictions.

The argument in the book between father and son also played out between the book’s author, Chaim Potok  and the Rebbe, when he attended one of the Rebbe’s public addresses. The Rebbe declared passionately “that if God has given someone a talent and an ability to write a book,...then regardless of the external form of the book in terms of its content, it must fulfil the purpose of persuading the reader that contrary to the views of the fools that think that the world runs without a Master in which might makes right, ... in the end righteous, justice and goodness will prevail”.

Potok did not respond directly to this argument, but he articulated his own philosophy about creative expression which could apply as much to art as it does to writing. In an interview he explained his choice not to meet privately with the Rebbe. Potok reflected that he “was concerned about how such a meeting would affect what I myself want to write about regarding this group. I didn’t want to meet personally with the Rebbe because it was very clear to me that this was a most unusual human being. I didn’t want to spend 20 minutes or half an hour in a room with him, and then have to rethink, undo, restructure, my imagination after that experience. A writer does the necessary encountering for his or her work, and when he feels that his imagination has enough encounter with the reality that he wants to write about, he walks away from the reality and lets the imagination work. You don’t let the reality overwhelm the imagination”.

For Potok,  art, of the written or visual form, is a process of great perfection and integrity that has roots in reality but must transcend the literal truth of reality, to the greater truth of the imagination.  Or as Pablo Picasso, stated: ““Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.”.

At the end of My Name is Asher Lev, there is a dramatic clash between Asher and his parents.  They come to see his exhibition and are confronted with a crucifixion he pained where his mother is portrayed as Jesus on the cross, suffering the torment of being torn between her husband and her son. Asher’s paternal grandfather was murdered by a Russian peasant in the lead up to Easter in an anti-Semitic act, presumably because of the mistaken belief that the Jews had crucified Jesus. Asher’s father regarded his son’s depiction of  him and his wife in a crucifixion scene as a terrible betrayal. He could not imagine any meaning of the cross other than the one he sees through the lens of his history and faith, both of which have strong objections to the symbol.  

To Asher, he had no choice if he wanted to be authentic. He was guided by artistic traditions about how to express his truth. The portrayal of the artist in Asher Lev echoes the words of the driven prophet Jeremiah: “But if I said; I will not mention Him, and I will no longer speak in His name, it would be in my heart like a burning fire, confined in my bones, and I wearied to contain it but was unable.  Asher’s powerful commentary on reality is inside him and eventually comes out whether he likes it or not. The conflict was intense and appeared unresolvable.

Someone asked me after the play if I agreed that Asher suffered from moral blindness. I said I thought it was more a case of social blindness for both father and son. Neither protagonist can understand the worldview of the other. Particularly in the case of Asher, there is little reflection on the nature of the conflict. Asher appeared to act impulsively in his drawing, or even allowed others to act for him in the case of the decision by the gallery owner to display the crucifixion, which he doesn’t protest but doesn’t explicitly give permission for either. The name of the book, “My Name is Asher Lev”, hints at a justification for hurting his parents in order to be true to himself. .  

I think there is more than one way to be authentic. I found a little while ago that expressing myself freely in an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph without really thinking through what I was saying, how I was saying it and my relationship with some of the people about whom I was writing was an unwise choice. Even as we express ourselves, we can still take the time to reflect on the perspectives of others. In some cases we will resolve to stand our ground and in others to yield. At this point in my talk, I will raise my voice, for emphasis in the tradition of the art of public speaking. I will urge my listeners to ensure that whatever they choose, they should be fully aware of their feelings and principles and awake to the implications of their choices. The louder voice will probably jolt at least one of my listeners from their snoring slumber who will open one eye and wonder what it is all about.  

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.

“Defensive” genocide?! wrestling with Numbers 31:14-18- Mattot Maasei

A young Muslim man approached me the other week at a Shiite Islamic centre where I had been warmly welcomed. He quoted a section of the Torah in which Moses reprimanded Jewish soldiers for not killing the females during a battle 1. Moses commanded them to kill the mature women who had “known a man to lie with” 2 and the male children, but to allow the young girls to live. 3  I did not know how to respond. Luckily for me, a community leader told the young man to leave me alone as “this is not appropriate”. However, I continue to struggle with this passage.

Judaism is not suggesting that this passage has any relevance for action today. This was an instruction for action in a particular time, over 3000 years ago, by the prophet Moses who was trusted “to know the will of God”. Jews no longer have prophets and therefore no one has the authority to do as Moses did. In my Chabad tradition, Midian, who attacked the Jews with no provocation, is taught as being symbolic of baseless hatred 4. A recent scholar has argued that it was only “in ancient times, when all nations that were around (the Israelites) were like ‘wolves waiting in ambush’, that it was necessary to fight (in this way), otherwise they would annihilate the rest of Israel, God forbid. And moreover, they needed to conduct themselves with cruelty to frighten/deter the savages among men 5.”  

The context of the above passage was a battle commanded by God, presented in the text as revenge 6 against the people of Midian because they: “distress 7 you with their plots 8 which they contrived against you in the incident of (the idol) Peor and in the incident of Cozbi their sister…” 9 This is understood as a strategy deployed by Midian to deliberately harm the Jews spiritually, that used the daughters of Midian 10 to seduce Jewish men and then pressure them to worship Peor. An argument is made that Midian continued to be an on-going threat and killing them was an act of self-defence. It might be read today as a morality tale that teaches the dangers of lust and its spiritual risks, although it positions the threat as external, in the non-Jewish female “other” rather than focusing on the lust in the Jewish male heart. One problematic dynamic at work in prejudice is essentialising the other 11. The Midianites are portrayed as an evil threat 12 based on “their very nature13.

We recently marked the 20th year anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre and genocide. I shudder to think that the human family, by a combination of action inaction and thought can still sink to such evil. I reflect on my experience in a Melbourne taxi. The Serbian driver told me his narrative. “The world doesn’t understand the true nature of the Serb’s enemies “, he asserted. He argued that the “others” were essentially terrible people, based on historical grievances dating back to the 1200’s, and that he thought Serbian actions against them were justified. It made me realise how people could be persuaded of the supposed essential evil of the “other” and the “morality” of perpetrating violence, despite the concern and condemnation of the “whole world”. I suggest that the fact that Moses himself was married to a Midianite woman, Tzipora 14, is an effective refutation of this essentialist argument, both in terms of Midian and generally. 

Ironically one argument for killing the children, which certainly amounts to genocide, is based on the threat from the children of the enemy when they grow up.  “If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you” 15. An example of this is the case of Haman 16, a descendent of Amalek, another divinely ordered undesirable people who were to be destroyed. Amalek began the process with an unprovoked hateful attack on the Jews in the desert. This nation was almost completely annihilated by King Saul many centuries later, but a survivor managed eventually to produce this descendant, Haman. This same Haman who argued “that there is one people, spread between the nations, whose customs are different” 17 and that this justified their genocide. Without irony, the same words להשמיד להרוג ולאבד, to “destroy to kill and annihilate”18, that were proposed for the Jews because of Haman’s decree are also used about the intended action against Midian 19. What an astonishing example of karma, blow-back, and the failure of genocide as a security measure.

It is useful to draw attention to teachings that raises concerns about the ethics of this killing. One commentary draws attention to Moses’ anger when learning that the women have been kept alive.  His anger is explained by the fact that "Certainly by law, it is not proper to kill the male children".  Although another consideration “forced” Moses to violate this principle of law, he was angry that he is in a situation where he is ordering this killing. Moses’ anger, and perhaps underlying distress, is so great that he errs in a separate matter of law in the following passage, in which it is left for Elazar to speak the laws. The justice of killing the women, who were pressured into offering their bodies to the spiritual warfare by men, has also been questioned by the leader of the battle Pineas himself. However in the end this was countered by the argument that the women had of their own volition and initiative manipulated the Jewish men to worship the idols.

In the end, I am still troubled by the passage the young man approached me about. It helps that this is not a directive for behaviour today but is instead taken metaphorically as a message against baseless hatred. It was a specific instruction by someone presumed to know the “mind of God”’ in a particular context thousands of years ago. As man evolves, we learn more compassionate and less destructive ways of dealing with threats and grievances, which some of us practice, some of the time. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa and the restorative justice approach are two examples of better ways to deal with past harm. Diplomacy and negotiation can sometimes be effective in preventing future harm. Part of my truth is that my relationship with God and Torah is not entirely based on logic, but rather one that continues despite the tensions of my passionate rejection of defensive genocide, certainly in the modern context, while also holding on to the holy Torah.

I would be grateful for readers’ comments and thoughts, which can be sent to me at zalman@togetherforhumanity.org.au.

_______________________________
1  Numbers 31:14-18
2 Translation of these words by Arye Kaplan in “The Living Torah” edition, who renders יודעת איש למשכב  as actually having “known a man ”rather than being of the age at which she could “know” a man which is the view mentioned by Rashi. This is discussed in the Talmud, Yevamot, 60B
3 Numbers 31:18, the words in the text about the young women are “keep alive for yourselves” has this has been mistranslated as “take for yourselves” and misunderstood by some people who have never read the text in the Hebrew as allowing sexual slavery. Traditionally these words have been interpreted in the Talmud, Yevamot 60b, discusses their being kept alive for future marriage or to serve as maidservants and an instruction to convert them to Judaism by Ohr Hachayim,
4 The Chasidic discourse known as “Heichaltzu” is a prime example of this.
5 Rav Kook, Letters of the Seeing, Part, p.100, (אגרות הראיה ח"א עמ' ק) cited in Sharki, R. Uri, Jewish Morality in War, Parshat Matot, מוסר יהודי במלחמה , לפרשת מטות - דברי הרב אורי שרקי  http://rotter.net/forum/politics/23960.shtml, thanks to R. Y. G. Bechhofer for drawing this article to my attention
6 Numbers 31:1-2
7 The Hebrew word is צוררים (Tzoririm). I have deliberately chosen the translation of Chabad.org renders it as “they distress you” in the present continuous tense. This is similar to the translation of Unkelus who renders it asאינון לכון  מעיקין (Me-ikin Inun Lchon), “distressing to you”, this is also the translation of the King James Bible. This supports a self-defence argument made by the commentary of Klei Yakar that they are “still distressing you, and perhaps God knew what was in the hearts of the Midyanites that their rage had still not subsided and that they are still distressing (you), thinking thoughts” and wicked plots. Ibn Ezra followed by the New King James and many other translations that pop up in a quick google search render it as part tense which fits better with the text of this verse but cancel any self-defence argument and narrow the meaning of the war against Midian to be being just about revenge. The word can also be translated as a noun which might be translated as “antagonists”. This approach is taken (I believe) by the translation of the Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel who renders it as עייקון (Eikun) in Aramaic  
8 This word is in the plural which is hard to explain according to the approach taken by Ibn Ezra see previous note, but fit better with the approach of the Klei Yakar
9 Numbers 25:18
10 This plot is linked to the verse…, one resolution to this contradiction is that the Midyanite women pretended to be Moabites (Abarabanel)
11 Stuart Hall in his work on representations is one scholar who develops this theme
12 Ralbag Bamidbar 31-32, Matos, Toelles 4, Mosad Rav Kook edition, p. 177, Abarbanel
13 Ralbag ibid, states of the Midianites, "they are prepared for (harming the Jews) because of their nature, (acquired as it were from the) the rock that they were hewn from"
14 Exodus
15 Numbers 33:55, also cited by Abarbanel in relation to the war against Midyan
16 Ralbag Bamidbar 31-32, Matos, Toelles 4, Mosad Rav Kook edition, p. 177
17 Esther 3:8
18 Esther 3:13
19 Abarbanel