Silenced Man of God – Joshua, the “severed head” - Shlach

It is appalling to see the silencing of “men or women of God” or other voices of conscience when they are advocating for justice or compassion.  I am not denying that there are scoundrels, who cloak themselves in righteousness or clerical robes and promote cruelty or foolishness. However, this blog  focuses on the thwarting of people like artists, journalists, cartoonists and clergy, in their roles as social critics. The people who are supposed to be the brakes on the darker impulses of the powerful and the many, are prevented from playing their vital role in speaking for virtue, the weak and the few. This is like players in a sport turning on the referee.

This calls for some clarification: I  would like to emphasise that I am not concerned about people offering alternative views. What concerns me is when they attack the legitimacy of credible people with whom they disagree.

According to one scholar, this is the meaning of a peculiar expression in the Talmud relating to Joshua, the prophet. Joshua was one of twelve spies, who returned to the desert from Canaan (1). He dissented from the views of ten of his fellow spies, who were opposed to God’s plan for the Israelites to go to the Promised Land.  The majority were not content to argue their case on its merits. Instead, according to the Talmud (2), when Joshua tried to speak, they shut him up with the following statement:  “Will this severed head speak?!”

According to one commentary (3), the strange phrase was an attack on Joshua’s status and legitimacy or standing in the discussion.  Moses had added the letter Yud (Y), which is the first letter of God’s name, to Joshua’s name, changing it from Hoshea, to Yehoshua (4). This name change symbolised his special status as being one of two spies, deemed aligned to God (5). The other spies sought to dismiss Joshua’s special status with the suggestion that the “head of his name”, the additional Yud from the name of God, was disconnected or severed from the rest of his name and not legitimately part of his name at all. The technicalities in this case are quaint but the tactic is all too common today.

One response to the tactic is often for social critics to get creative in order to get people’s attention, using click bait or humour. Another strategy that is quite risky, is for the social critic to give the impression that s/he agrees with the mob, but then, when s/he gets their attention, to say what s/he really thinks. Caleb, Joshua’s fellow dissenting spy, tried that approach with limited impact (6).

Often this leads to frustration on the part of the social critic. “Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb…tore their clothes” to express their grief (7). They continued to speak their truth while no one was listening. The catastrophe they sought to prevent, came to pass, with the Israelites’ anticipated entry into the Promised Land delayed by a generation.  Failure, at least some of the time, comes with the territory.

Fortunately, in some cases, there are at least partial victories that protect some people or preserve some principle. Those of us who find ourselves in roles advocating for compassion and justice, need to be prepared for our opponents to try to sever our “heads”, to deny our legitimacy. We need to ensure that our egos do not cloud our judgement -  it is not about us - and that our emotions are managed well. Then, we need to get in there and do what we can.

For all of us, the message is that good “followership” is just as important as good leadership. If we are ever tempted to discredit people we know to be good, albeit imperfect, people, let us instead listen to their arguments on their merit, instead of trying to silence them, if they are saying what we don’t want to hear.

Notes

(1)    Numbers 13

(2)    Talmud Sota 35a

(3)    Maharsha, (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edeles, lived 1555-1631) on Sota 34b and 35a, building on what he deemed a forced explanation by the Aruch.

(4)    Numbers 13:16

(5)    Maharsha explains that, while God would have preferred just two spies to gather practical information, the people had insisted on a broader mission for the spies to determine if they should proceed with the conquest of Canaan at all. This expanded purpose required representatives from each of the twelve tribes.

(6)    Talmud Sota 35a 

(7)     Numbers 14:6

Blame the followers? On Leadership- Shemini

I lay awake at 4:30 am the other day. Not for very long, but still unusual for me to be awake worrying about work. I tend to do my worrying during the day.

Fear of failure is a natural part of leadership. However, I wonder to what extent a leader needs to feel responsible for outcomes that are ultimately dependent on the choices of many people, whether active supporters or disinterested “followers”? Perhaps leadership is overrated. Some leaders appear successful, when in fact they are merely taking people where they want to go anyway.  Should the primary potency and responsibility be recognised as being with the followers instead? Perhaps this idea is a form of shirking of my responsibilities as a leader disguised as modesty. On the other hand, I know that my mental and emotional strength as a leader is enhanced by the generous appreciative  engagement of my “followers”, either as participants in my work or at my Torah discussions.   

In the Torah reading this week we read how Aaron was encouraged to approach the altar when he was bashful and fearful about performing sacrifices on the altar (1). Aaron imagined the altar resembling an ox and this reminded him about his past failure when he built an altar for a false god, the golden calf (2). Aaron carried the burden of that failure for the rest of his life. Yet the main stimulus for him being involved with the golden calf was the loss of faith by the people, which all but forced his hand.

The wording of the phrase in which Aaron was invited to approach the altar relates to the question of the impact of followers on their leaders. “Moses said to Aaron, a) "Approach the altar and perform your sin offering…and atone for yourself and [atone] for the people, and b) perform the people's sacrifice, and atone for them (3). This appears quite repetitive, Aaron is told twice to atone for the people. However, the atonement for the people actually involves two different elements. Aaron’s offering of a calf as a personal sin offering for himself is also partially an atonement for the people (4). Aaron’s sin is not only his own. This idea is also found in the way the offering of the anointed priest’s offering is described as well. “If the anointed priest sins, to the guilt of the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed, an unblemished young bull as a sin offering to the Lord” (5).

A sheikh I know reflected that we spend a lot of time giving leadership courses, perhaps we would be better off teaching people how to be followers. To all who have supported me in my work or teaching, thank you for helping me be as strong, mentally, emotionally and spiritually as I am. Thank you to the Australian supporter who sent me text messages about helping me from a hotel room in New York yesterday, at 7:00 am his time, while on holiday with his family. Thank you to the people who attend my Torah discussion group on a Saturday afternoon, who offer their thoughts, reflections and questions. Thank you dear reader for spending your precious time reading my thoughts. The success of leaders belongs to their followers as well as to the them. And when they fail, the buck stops with them... and perhaps a little bit with their followers too.

   

Notes

1. Torat Cohanim, in Torah Shlaima, p. 154.
2. Raavad cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 154.
3. Leviticus 9:7.
4. Abarbanel, Vayikra, p.108 (Chorev edition). Abarbanel’s interpretation of the atonement for the people that was included in Aaron’s offering is that Aaron’s sin “was a great stumbling block for the people”. However, his reference to the verse in Leviticus 4:3 can be plausibly interpreted in the way that I am suggesting in this post, even though this is not quite the way he explains it.
5. Leviticus 4:3. The translation is mine, others such as the translation on chabad.org renders it as “If the anointed kohen sins, bringing guilt to the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed”

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

Dissent! When you think the Authority is Mistaken Shoftim 2011

Photo by Louisa Catlover

(Revision of post of 1 Sept 2011, Authority, Compliance, Defiance – Hazare, Gaddafi & the “Malaysia Solution” Shoftim)

I remember well, the moments in my working life when I was asked to act against my own conscience, these infuriated me or at least made me feel defiant. I thank God I was able to stand my ground. I can see the value of deferring to others and I accept that it cannot be right for everyone to do as they fit in all situations. Where does one draw the line?

In recent days we have witnessed the capture of Gaddafi’s compound, the cave-in of the Indian Government to hunger striker Anna Hazare and in Australia the successful court challenge of our Government’s strategy to transfer Asylum seekers to Malaysia. My Muslim friends have celebrated their Eid festival on two different days this week, some of them in compliance with the Australian Imam’s Council, others doing it their own way. Our Torah reading today is Shoftim/Judges, it is a good time to consider what the Torah has to say on the question of deferring to authority.

Obeying the Guidance

If there is a matter that is hard to determine, we must 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 or to the left[i]. The simple meaning of “to the right or the left” is that we should not deviate at all from their instructions[ii].  But, this is also the jump off point for a discussion about dissent and compliance with the ruling of the Sanhedrin, the religious high court.

Even if they are wrong?

There are four perspectives on this. 1) We obey them even if they are wrong. 2) We not only obey them in spite of being convinced that they are wrong, we are also required to assume that we are mistaken. 3) We only obey the ruling of the Sanhedrin (Torah high court) if their rulings are correct. 4) There are complex ideas to consider when thinking about Right and wrong.

Even if they tell you right is left

Sifre states, “Even if it seems to you that they are telling you that right is left and left is right, obey them[iii]”. This phrase is quoted in Rashi, with one difference; he omits the words “it seems to you” and states it as if it were a fact, that the ruling is mistaken and telling to that right is left[iv]. Rashi’s intention is not entirely clear, one commentator on Rashi states that,” even if a person had a tradition from the great Beth Din in Jerusalem (the Sandhedrin) that he was present with them and they had told him that the law and now another Beth Din (religious court) is telling him the opposite that he received from many who were greater in wisdom and number, in spite of this he should not deviate as the one who commanded him to obey the Torah about that which forbidden and allowed has commanded this too..[v]”. This staggering statement essentially says that if the religious authority instructs you to do the wrong thing you should do it anyway.

You only think they are 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. You should 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[vi]. This approach is more in keeping with the original phrase that Rashi is based on, which states that even if it seems to you (that he tells you about) right is left…[vii]. The overall effect of this ideas is that 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.

A Commentary whose meaning is disputed

The most challenging for me is the explanation by the Ramban who he lived over a thousand years after Jew law courts lost the authority to carry out capital punishment. He writes, “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...[viii]. Other commentaries debate the meaning of Ramban because at the end of his explanation he mentions that God would protect the Sanhedrin from mistakes, while others see him as supporting the need to obey even mistaken guidance. Like natural laws that are generally good such as appetite but may occasionally cause harm, the overall impact of obeying the sages cancels out the harm of complying with the rare mistake[ix].

In practice both of these approaches tells the individual to disregard his own view. If follows a 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[x]. This view is taken to be correct and is included in Jewish law[xi]. This is in relation to acting on different views after a decision was reached, prior to that robust debate is standard practice and appropriate. 

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[xii]! The judge is warned not take bribes because the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and ruin the words of the righteous[xiii]. 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[xiv].

                                                                 

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[xv]. 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[xvi]. No naïve assumptions of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness.

Only when they get it right

The same phrase telling us not to deviate right or left is interpreted in the exact opposite way 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[xvii]. This view is echoed in a later work “If they truly tell you that right is left eg. They allow the eating of forbidden fats…it is certainly forbidden to obey them[xviii]”.

More Complex than simple right or wrong/A need for Adaptation to Circumstances

Another explanation is that being that these are matters of logic, there cannot really be a “right and left”[xix], perhaps a warning to those who reduce complex judgements down to a simple right or wrong, just like right and left instead of recognising the nuances and validity of arguments to support either conclusion[xx].  Another view by Abarbanel[xxi] is that in normal circumstances the norms of Jewish law are “right”, such as the very narrow set of circumstances that would allow a court to execute a murderer, needing him to be warned right before the act etc. This “right” approach is completely wrong (or Left) in a situation of rampant murders when there is a need for greater deterrent[xxii].  The temple was destroyed because they judged (matters) by the (normal) law of the Torah[xxiii], rather than being adaptive.

Civil Disobedience

Despite the strong guidance about the need to obey the sages, obeying political leaders is quite a different matter[xxiv]. This is especially true with the midwives in Egypt who defied the evil king Pharaoh’s order to kill Jewish baby boys[xxv]. 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[xxvi]. Maimonides makes it very clear that when a King’s instructions contradict those of the Torah, the king is to be disobeyed[xxvii]. This follows the Talmudic idea, “the words of the teachers and the words of the students, which is to be obeyed?[xxviii]” 

Conclusion

There is value in the preservation of authority but this is not an absolute value. The difference between following the sages when you think they are wrong or actually wrong is hypothetical, in both cases from the perspective of the dissenter the experience is the same. There must be recognition that the feeling that my perspective is as absolutely correct as my knowledge of my right and left hands is foolish. Every situation is different and requires flexible and sometimes subtle as well as bold judgement that will deviate from normal procedures. It can appear to an individual that left is being labelled as right, when in fact ultimate justice is being served by subverting normal Torah procedures. Deference and humility are useful here as is robust discussion where appropriate. Yet, there are certainly situations where human authority is overridden. I am not across the details of Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption efforts in India, but I think he is acting appropriately by fighting corruption, even if he is holding democratic institutions to ransom with his hunger strike. The rule of law is important but conscience and the rule of God must be given a lot of weight against simply “following orders” as we heard in the infamous Nuremburg defence. Further study would be useful as this topic is far from closed for me.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 17:9-11

[ii] Oonkelus translation, Bchor Shor

[iii] Sifre Piska 154

[iv] Rashi on 17:11

[v] Gur Aryeh, Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, (c. 1520 –1609) widely known as the Maharal of Prague, or simply The MaHaRaL

[vi] Sifse Chachamim

[vii] Sifre

[viii] Ramban on 17:11

[ix] Rabbenu Nissim

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

[xi] Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, Hilchot Mamrim, 4:1

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

[xiii] Deuteronomy 16:19

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

[xv] Deuteronomy 16:18

[xvi] Klei Yakar

[xvii] Jerusalem Talmud Horiyos 1:1

[xviii] Torah Temima, Rabbi Baruch ha-Levi Epstein 1860-1941

[xix] Sifse Chachamim

[xx] Klei Yakar

[xxi] Isaac ben Judah Abrabanel, (1437 –1508),

[xxii] Let us put aside contemporary arguments about the actual deterrent value of capital punishment, this was written over 500 years ago

[xxiii] Talmud, Bava Metzia, 39b, a statement by Rabbi Yochanan which is applied to the need for going beyond the letter of the law but lends itself quite plausibly to this interpretation as well

[xxiv] 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

[xxv] Exodus 1:15-19

[xxvi] Samuel I, 22:16-17

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

[xxviii] Talmud, Kiddushin 42b

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