Letting the guard down? On fears and policing

Part of my mind acts as a policeman watching me. Did I do this right? Am I good enough? This self-vigilance and fear is draining.  This week, while I was walking on a nature trail in Ryde, I noticed a sign for walkers that reminded them to “control your dog”. I creatively interpreted it as the need for people to control the ”barking” in the form of repetitive and harsh self-criticism.

I deliberately suggest we “control” the critical voice in our minds, rather than eliminate it, because I think it plays a role in protecting us from wrongdoing. I have been confronted this week with some of the darker sides of humans. I was disturbed to hear about cruelty to men, women and their children who have escaped horrific oppression, because they dared to seek a better life and perhaps because of cultural differences that are seen as a threat (1). In this case, fear of people who are seen as different, is the motivator for cruelty. However, here the critical voice expressing fear of wrongdoing could have motivated these people to do the right thing. Every weekday morning during the current Hebrew month of Elul, Jews sound a ram’s horn called a Shofar, to instil “a sense of trepidation and fear” (2), even “trembling” (3), in order to lead us to repentance and introspection.

Some religious people fear the physical world - its sensual pleasures and material offerings. In a crowded Sydney Mosque, I heard a very young Imam warn against the evils of the “dunya”, the physical world, with great intensity. This week’s Torah reading tells us to appoint police officers at “all our gates” (4). In a metaphoric sense, this is interpreted to mean that we must appoint an internal ”policeman” to monitor our contact with the world that comes through our five senses (5). Societies look eagerly to police to protect them from the vices of their fellow citizens. In the US, this approach has not worked out well, in recent months, for some African Americans. 

Instead of allowing fear to justify excessive policing, we must embrace a healthier kind of fear - not of the common man but of the corruption of those in positions of power. The Torah warns of the bias that can arise from judges accepting bribes (6), which can ultimately cause even an initially righteous judge to lose his mind (7). The Torah insists that a king must be vigilant to ensure that “his heart does not become elevated above his brothers and that he does not stray from God’s commandments” (8). 

One scholar expresses deep distrust of those in power. He suggests that it would be better for those with power to be appointed for fixed terms of three years or less so that their successors could hold them to account and “investigate them to see whether they breached their trusted role”, in the way that Australian Governments often do with their predecessors.  He also insists that, when there is a dispute between one (a ruler) and many (the citizens), we should follow the view of the many. He argues that the risk of “an individual doing wrong out of foolishness, desire or anger, is greater than that happening with the many” (9). Similar sentiments were expressed last week by an eleven-year-old student from a migrant family in Western Sydney. She thought ”the Australian way was right”, because of our system of government that requires, at least in its design, that the will of the people be implemented rather than that of one despotic ruler.

In terms of the sensual temptations themselves, the Torah does not see them as simply bad. On the contrary, we are cautioned against rejecting the pleasures of this world. A person who vows not to drink wine temporarily (10), is seen as having sinned in a sense. Sheikh Soner Coruhlu has a different view of the material/physical world from the one expressed by the young Imam above. He wrote that “The ’Dunya', from my understanding of our tradition, is an opportunity…to draw nearer unto to the Creator by proving one's self worthy of drawing near. The manner in which one draws near to their Lord is … moral excellence while believing in the Most High. The “Dunya” therefore is an opportunity when one is morally and ethically inclined but a threat if one is miserly, oppressive, immoral, unethical etc.” (11).

Fear of our own human vulnerability to do wrong is a necessity and a blessing when it is used wisely and proportionately. Fear of people who appear different from us, is simply bigotry. Being wary of those in positions of power or even of our own internal policeman getting out of control, is vital. 

1)    http://hotline.org.il/en/main/
2)    Sadia Gaon, cited in http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/4392/jewish/Sounding-of-the-Shofar.htm
3)    Amos 3:6 “If the shofar is sounded in the city, will people not tremble?”
4)    Deuteronomy 16:18
5)    Attributed to Rav Chaim Vital on http://www.shortvort.com/shoftim-parasha/11901-parashas-shoftim-guard-your-senses
6)    Deuteronomy 16:19
7)    Talmud Ketubot, 105a, referring to the taking of bribes
8)    Deuteronomy 17:20
9)    Abarbanel on Shoftim. On the other hand, the commentator Klei Yakar, seems more concerned about the independence of judges. He emphasises the need to protect judges from the potentially corrupting influences of those who install the judges, if they were to retain an influence after they complete the task of installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse in the Torah that calls for the appointment of judges, is instructive. “Judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice”. 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 those who appoint them because, if they remain dependent on those people, there will never be justice. There is no naïve assumption of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness. The political influences on secular judges in Australia and Israel, as it relates to asylum seeker judgements, can also be considered in this light.
10)    A Nazirite who vows not to drink wine among other vows, must bring a sacrifice to atone for rejecting some of God’s gifts, even temporarily
11)    Facebook post, 18.08.2015, https://www.facebook.com/zalman.kastel/posts/10153457332070470?comment_id=10153457499415470&notif_t=like his post continues with the following. “The human being is distinct from the rest of Creation in that it has the capacity to morally judge the outcome of any action or statement it may partake in. Where most of creation will simply follow the whims of their desires, the human being will first analyse what the consequence of following one's desires may be. Will this act harm another person, another animal, the environment, me and so forth. Those who do not use this God given capacity to make such judgements and simply follow their base desires, even when it harms others, behaves in a way that is not unlike the animals”.

Citizenship is at its core about people getting along with each other –Abraham in a discrimination case

This week, I had the extraordinary privilege to be part of a group advising the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority about a Civics and Citizenship curriculum. I was there because of my work with diversity education. In the Torah reading this week we have Abraham, as a non-citizen, negotiating with the citizens of Hebron about overcoming discriminatory rules about burial. This is the springboard for a discussion about, discrimination and citizenship.

Citizenship

The word Citizen, refers to “an inhabitant of a city or town; especially: one entitled to …rights and privileges” or a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it[i]. I would suggest that citizenship goes beyond loyalty to a government in exchange for its protection of the privileges of established citizens. I think it includes a range of responsibilities we have for ensuring justice for all people regardless of where they were born, within the constraints of the collective ability of the nation or city we are citizens of. One limit on this would be the idea that “the poor of your city come first[ii]”.

The role of Government itself is about protecting the vulnerable as reflected in the exhortation to pray for the peace of the monarchy, because if not for it, each man would swallow his fellow alive[iii]. A citizens of representative governments we surely have a role to play as well in ensuring that people and groups are not swallowed alive or treated in a discriminatory way.

Citizenship as scrutiny to prevent discrimination

It is written "The face of the generation is like the face of a dog[iv]" One interpretation of this is that "The face of the generations" means its leaders. And why does it look like a dog? Because a dog runs ahead, as if it were leading the master. But when it comes to a parting of the way, the dog waits for the master to decide where to go. Then it runs ahead again[v]. This means that especially within democracies, where leaders are interested to varying degrees in the views of their voters, citizens have an important role to play to communicate their desire for equitable treatment of all to their leaders and watch them to ensure they deliver.

A defining experience for me was my attendance at an election event where a candidate made a meaningless promise to expand a government program that combats prejudice. The initiative he anounced was an old and underfunded program that was not going to get a penny more. The anouncement was blatantly deceptive.  Yet, I blame the audience. Why did no one except for me, ask a question to challenge this deception or press him for some real commitment? That day I saw a collective shirking of citizenship responsibility which is why the candidate was elected and did very little to prevent discrimination.

Discrimination in Hebron

This dynamic plays some part in the case of Abraham when he seeks to bury his wife Sarah. The sons of Heth, the citizens of ancient Hebron had a custom that citizens had a dedicated burial place for each family, but for the strangers they had a field in which all the strangers were buried[vi]. No family plots for non-citizens. In the ancient world, having a burial ground was linked to citizenship[vii]. This is expressed in the statement “What have you hear, and whom have you here that you have carved out a grave for yourself here”[viii].  Apart from the obvious reason Abraham cried for Sarah, an additional meaning of and “Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and to bewail her[ix]” is that he cried because he did not have a burial plot for his wife[x]. So he pleads his case, "I am a stranger and an inhabitant with you[xi]”. Like so many who have travelled from place, to place, he asks that in spite of not being from here originally, he wishes to settle and be treated like a local.

Little Brother is Watching

Abraham identifies a plot land. The owner of the land is appointed as a law enforcement official[xii]. The text refers repeatedly to the fact that the discussion about whether Abraham will be allowed to bury his dead is done before the “Sons of Chet”[xiii]. Chief Ephron shows he knows his decision are being watched.  Ephron tells Abraham " listen to me. I have given you the field, and the cave that is in it, I have given it to you. Before the eyes of the sons of my people, I have given it to you; bury your dead”[xiv]. The subtext is Ephron is hinting, that surely you understand that the offer I am making to give you the field for free is because everyone is watching me but really I cannot be expected to give this field for free[xv]. Putting aside the question of price, the grave is provided and praise is heaped on the sons of Heth, who are mentioned a total of 10 times in the Torah[xvi].      

Conclusion

Ismail Mirza

If Citizenship is at its core about people getting along with each other, then one of the most important rituals of citizenship is ensuring that those around us, whether chiefs or ordinary fellow citizens know that we care about how they treat others, and we are watching. One case in point is that of Hazara refugee, Ismail Mirza, who believes he is in grave danger is he is forced to return to Afghanistan this Saturday. It is important that Australian elected leaders know we care about this.

---

[i] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citizen

[ii] Talmud, Bava Metzia 71a

[iii] Ethics of the Fathers 3:2

[iv] Talmud 9:15

[v] Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, the wording here is from http://www.hagalil.com/israel/GuShalom/israel/middle-east.htm

[vi] Ramban on Genesis 23:4

[vii] Seforno on Genesis 23:4

[viii] Isaaia 22:16

[ix] Genesis 23:2

[x] Chizkuni

[xi] Genesis 22:4

[xii] Beresheet Rabba and Rashi

[xiii] Genesis 22:3, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18 and again in 20.

[xiv] Genesis 23:11

[xv] Haamek Davar

[xvi] Beresheet Rabba 58, note 8 times in this story and the 9^th and 10^th appearing in 25:10 and 49:32 (Munk, Rabbi E)

God's Way -Halacha (Shariah) vs. democracy

Disclaimers: 1) Some people speak from a religious perspective with no authority and limited knowledge. They create false impressions of their faith. 2) Commentary is influenced by historical context, and may not be the prevailing view in another time.

The Match

Last Thursday night I listened to an unrepresentative and unqualified fellow named Ibrahim Conlon, an architect convert to Islam who decided to redesign Australia. He spoke for the affirmative in a debate at a town hall on whether democracy should be replaced by Shariah law[1]. “What basis is there for democracy?!” he asked repeatedly. “What if you had 100 Murderers or Homosexuals? he challenged his opponent (ignoring the difference between the two) “would you still follow the majority?”

The question of the death penalty for apostasy was raised. A young Palestinian-Aussie asked me how Jewish law would respond to some of these explosive issues. Indeed, 1) what is the relationship between God's revealed path[2] and democracy? 2) How does it apply to humanity generally and 3) specifically for adherents of the Torah?

Clash of world views?

It has been argued that the world views of Torah and western are profoundly different[3].  Consider the divergence between Torah’s focus on obligations vs. a society that emphasises rights. This divergence leads to two ways of seeing law.
A) As an intrusion in life that should be tolerated only to the degree that it prevents people’s rights being trampled, so “government is best when it governs least[4]”.
B) If life is about our obligations, than the more laws the better because these laws ennoble and refine us[5] help us achieve our purpose in life[6], to prepare the society of completed people[7] or a home for God on earth[8].

Freedom, while prized in both systems, means different things in each. In Torah it is about the freedom to obey God[9], while in the west it is the freedom to do as we please. Finally, the value of individualism and individual choice in the open society even extends to the approval of civil disobedience to break the law which is not tolerated in the Halacha.  

Compatible or Compartmentalized?

Roth concludes that the divergent approaches can be dealt with by thinking of them as operating within different terms of reference, in different parts of a person’s life. As someone raised is a very different school of thought (Chabad) to that of Rabbi Roth, my subjective and likely very unfair reaction to this resolution is to hear echoes of the idea of a being Jew in the home and a “man” in the street[10].

Synthesis

An attempt at synthesis is made Rabbi David Rosen[11], who argues that if we think of democracy as being about equality and dignity of the individual then it would be seen by Torah as a moral imperative. He points to the fact that in the Torah it is the people who appoint the king[12]. Moses recounts how he consulted the people in his appointment of judges, “bring from among yourselves men of wisdom and understanding, well known to your tribes and I will appoint them[13]”.

When great sages Hillel and Shamai introduced a law that the public did not accept initially, it is not considered valid until a generation later when the community accepted it[14].  In one of our dramatic stories, a sage was asked to violate his own conscience and was humiliated. This was one factor that led to the demotion of the lead scholar of the Jewish people[15]. “If you (despise another person), know whom you despise for in the image of God, He made man[16]” The human being is not seen as little cog in the great wheel of God will, but as one made in the image of God, whose dignity and will deserves great respect. Democracy affirms the dignity of the individuals.

Civil law is binding on believers

Man made law is seen as authoritative and subject to certain conditions is binding on Jews as expressed in the principle of “Dina Dmalchuta Dina”, the law of the kingdom has the status of law[17]. (I cannot speak for Islam, but if I remember correctly, my Muslim colleague had once explained that Shariah would arrive at the same practical conclusion as a matter of implied contract as part of citizenship. He also thinks that Australia is much more of an Islamic state than Iran or Saudi Arabia because of its social policies are consistent in his view with Islam.)

Civil law, fulfilment of Divine Law?

Judaism has a tradition of a set of divine laws for all mankind called the “Seven Noahide laws”, one of these is the requirement to establish of systems of laws and justice. There are two opinions about this commandment a) The content of the laws was also prescribed by God and is essentially the same as the civil laws in the Torah[18]. b) The meaning of a system of “laws” as required by the Noahide code is justice based on national customs and lawmaking[19]. According to the latter view God's law sees the laws of governments as the fulfilment of God's command.

Jew stay out of court?

In spite of this, the courts of law established by non-Jews are not seen as the appropriate venue for Jews to seek justice[20], for various reasons. A) If their law is different to Torah law and money changes hands this would be considered theft[21]. B) The case of an idol-worshippers court even if in a particular law their laws would be identical to Jewish law because of a desecration of Gods name and honours the names of idols to praise them…when our enemies (are our) judges, this is a testimony to the superiority of their (object or religious) fear[22]. This would be the case even with a secular court, which by virtue of it replacing a Torah court would still be seen as denigrating Torah. An exception to this is when a Torah court gives permission to Jewish litigants to attend a civil court. From a legal perspective, my understanding is that in most cases, this should not be an issue if the litigants agree to appoint an arbitrator or mediator out of court.

Death Penalty for Unbelievers?

In practice Jewish law does not have the death penalty in spite of the fact that the law for executing an idol worshipper is still on the books. It is only because of the downgrading of rabbinic authority that we do not have the power to act on this. (Phew, how, very convenient).

Conclusion

Some of our ideals can be better realised in parallel with democracy, rather than within it. Still, democracy is one important and practical way to progress Torah’s vision of a just society. The Lubavitcher Rebbe referred to the United States as a “kingdom of kindness”. If a Jew argued for the destruction of democracy, he would be reminded that in theocracies, Jews were burned at the stake. A ‘Jewish Conlon’ would be told that as a democrat he had the right to say what he pleases, but as Jew he had an obligation to shut up and recognise the Torah case for democracy. Unless we knew for certain that he would not listen because he thinks he knows better, in which case the Mitzvah is to leave him alone. I would assume that in the actual case of Mr. Ibrahim Conlon, Australian Muslim religious leaders will counsel him in a similar way, if they think he is open to guidance. I hope with the additional information about our own tradition, we can respond more appropriately to the type of challenge I faced last Thursday night. 

With much appreciation to the scholars who have come before me, especially Rabbi Dr. Sol Roth and Rabbi David Rosen

---

[1]  http://www.parramattasun.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-great-debate-in-parramatta-sharia-law-for-australia/2053480.aspx

[2] The Hebrew word for Jewish law is Halahca, which relates to the word “going”, or the ‘way to go’, the Muslim word is Shariah, which means the path.

[3] Roth Rabbi Dr. S (1990), http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/704412/Rabbi_Sol_Roth/Judaism_and_Democracy

[4]  John Stuart Mill, cited in Roth

[5]  Mitzvot were not given (for any other reason but) to refine the creations/Israel, Vayikra Rabba 13.3, Beresheet Rabba 44, Midrash Shmuel 84, also central to approach of Sefer Hachinuch

[6]  Based on Pirkey Avot, everything God created, he created only for his glory

[7]  Derech Hashem, Rabbi Moshe Chayim Lutzato in the introduction

[8]  Midrash Tehilim, as explained in Chabad Chasidism  

[9] As expressed in Pirkey Avot 6:2, “there is no one who is free other than one who studies Torah”

[10] Jacobs, L, “As late as the mid­-nineteenth century the Russian maskil, Judah Leib Gordon, could still proclaim as the Haskalah ideal: “Be a Jew in your home and a man outside it,” http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/17001914/Emancipation_and_Enlightenment/In_the_West/Haskalah_I.shtml,

[11]  Rosen, D, (2001), Democracy: a Moral Imperative in Judaism http://www.rabbidavidrosen.net/articles.htm

[12] Deuteronomy 17:15

[13] Deuteronomy 1:13

[14] Talmud Shabbat 17a and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat chapter 2, cited in Rosen.

[15]  Mishna, Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9, story of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, where Rabbi Yehoshua calculated a different date for Yom Kippur and he was ordered to appear before Rabban Gamliel with his staff and wallet on the day he believed to be Yom Kippur.

[16] Beresheet Rabba 1:24

[17]  Talmud, Gittin 10a

[18]  Ramban Commentary on Beresheet, 34:13

[19] Rabbenu Yaakov Antoli (whose book has been used by the Orchot Chayim, Kol Bo and Meiri) in Melamed Hatalmidim, brought in Torah Shleima Miluim to Parsha Mishpatim p. 218

[20] Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26. (Quoted by Ira Yitzchak Kasdan - http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/psharah1.html)

[21] Chidushei R. Akivah Eiger, Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26:1 "Uv'arkaot shelahem."

[22]  Rashi on Exodus 21:1.

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