My “Jewish God”?

In 2012, the last time I wrote about this topic, I began with the following disclaimer: “This is a critical reflection on certain aspects of my tradition. It has been suggested to me that, in highlighting these elements, I am reinforcing a misconception of Judaism as overly harsh. A balanced study of Judaism and the Yom Kippur service will show concepts of God as both compassionate alongside themes of judgement”. This disclaimer is still relevant.

On Saturday 23rd September this year, I will have the solemn Jewish New Year Holy Day prayers echoing in my mind. Many of these will reflect the idea of God as a judge. God’s verdicts will determine ‘Who will live and who will die? Who at their pre-destined time and who before their time?’ (1). One week later, Jewish people observe the Day of Atonement, where the theme of God as judge comes up again, along with language referring to God as father and king. It leads me to consider what the traditional Jewish concept of God is (This is what my topic means, not that there is a God that belongs to Jews or a God who is Jewish somehow.)  

In our highly poetic Torah reading this week, we are told that “all of God’s ways are ’judgement’” (2). The Talmud takes this verse as a warning against daring to say that God is clement (e.g. one whose nature it is to let people get away with sins) or indulgent (3). This teaching is puzzling because God is praised in the Torah as forbearing of sin (4). An implausible resolution of this contradiction is that God is forgiving of one or two sins, but not with repeat offenders (5).

A far more compelling teaching encourages us to have faith and confidence in God’s forgiveness. God is described as “generously forgiving the instant one pleads for forgiveness…” (6). This teaching refers to the daily prayer that praises God for being abundant in forgiveness (7).  “It is characteristic of people, that if one injures another and asks his pardon which is granted, and then repeats the misdeed, it becomes more difficult to grant pardon again, and certainly a third and fourth time. But, by the standard of God, there is no difference between once and a thousand times. Pardon is a manifestation of [God’s] ...mercy. Divine [mercy is] not bounded and finite; they are infinite.” (8). .."For His mercies have not ended" (9).

Recently, I have been learning a little about assertiveness and management  from a wise woman, Michelle Brenner, and the impressive business coach Wade Ebrahimi. (10) (Yes, this is a plug.) A key lesson for me is about the importance of being clear in my communication as a “boss”. I don’t like the idea of being a “boss”. I would rather just be a colleague and still get everything magically done as I think it should. I am learning that I can continue to be collegial with those who report to me. However, I must also give them clear direction. I must differentiate between suggestions, requests and, if need be, orders. Similarly, God relates to humans in multiple ways - in mercy mode as well as holding us accountable. The former should not be taken to override the latter, particularly in a moment of decision making about whether or not to do the right thing (11).  

If I was seeking a neat resolution, I would end this discussion with the abundant forgiveness teaching above. One Jewish man I met the other day, thought of God as predominantly forgiving. That works for him. For me, I am caught between the different characterizations of God in both Torah and prayers.

I was struck by an anecdote that included an apparently tactless statement made to a grieving father mourning the death of his young son. The father was told that the death of young children is a Divine punishment of parents for the parents’ sins (12). The basis for this troubling idea is the verse “God saw and became angry, from the anger of his sons and daughters” (13). This is interpreted as parents provoking God, causing Him to punish the parents through their children (14). The modern reader can either howl in protest or respond with silence.

These teachings, somehow, sit side by side with parental concepts of God.  We read of God carrying the Jew like an eagle carries its young on its wings, (15) “nursing him with honey from bedrock” (16).

Despite the contradictions, I take some comfort from the fact that, whenever the Torah calls us to imitate God, there are always references to God as caring and compassionate, never cruel and harsh. “Just as G‑d is called merciful, so too, you must be merciful. Just as G‑d is called kind, so too, you must be kind...” (17). Similarly, we are taught:  "Just as God clothes the naked, ... so too, you must clothe the naked. Just as God visits the sick, ... so too, you must visit the sick. Just as God comforts mourners, ... so too, you must comfort mourners" (18).

I end, as I began, without a clear Jewish concept of God. I don't speak for all Jews, but I think it is fair to say that it is not a simple question to answer for those of us who seek guidance from traditional texts. This time of the year, with the days of judgement, repentance and atonement, is a time for re-engagement between the Jew and his God. I suggest that the repeated references, in our liturgy, to God as both father and king, is a useful indication of a complex Jewish understanding of God.  

1.     Reflection on who will live and who will die is prominent in the Unesaneh Tokef prayer, which is a key part of the Rosh Hashanah prayers.

2.     Deuteronomy 32:4: Surprisingly, Ramban suggests that Mishpat here relates to mercy.

3. Talmud Bava Kama 3a: The context of this teaching is a story about a righteous man who dug wells for the community, whose daughter fell into a well but was saved from drowning in the merit of her father’s good deeds. Yet, her brother died of thirst, despite his father’s merit in supplying people with drinking water, because God is very demanding of the righteous and even small sins can result in harsh punishment.
4. Exodus 34:7
5. Torah Temima on Deuteronomy 32:4
6. Tanya, Igeret Hateshuva 11
7. The Amida, חנון המרבה לסלוח
8. Tanya, Ibid
9. Lamentations 3:22
10. http://www.triserv.com.au/
11. Torah Temima
12. Talmud Kesubot 8b
13. Deuteronomy 32:19
14. Rashi on Talmud Kesubot 8b, also in Maharsha commentary
15. Deuteronomy 32:11
16. Deuteronomy 32:13
17. Sifrei Parshat Eikev., cited in Maimonides’ Sefer Hamitzvot, Mitzvah 8, based on Deuteronomy. 28:9, 11:22, and 13:5
18. Talmud, Sotah 14a

My Slavery Sermon: “Fat", Privileged & Uncaring

People just don’t care - I often find that infuriating!

But, the reality is that I don’t care enough about some things either, like modern day slavery for example. This sad fact came to my attention as I prepared to deliver last Saturday’s sermon as part of an interfaith initiative to combat modern day slavery.

I had prepared this sermon long in advance in collaboration with Rabbi Shoshana Kaminsky (1) for the organisation, “Stop the Traffik”. So I began with the staggering figure from the 2016 Global Slavery Index which reported that nearly 46 million human beings are currently trapped in slavery.  This is the highest number of slaves in human history. I then shared the following anecdote.

Ashani’s (not her real name) father was sick, but the family had no money to pay for needed treatment. Ashani accepted a loan that she believed she would repay by working in a Mumbai factory, but when she reached Mumbai she discovered that her job would not be in a factory but in a brothel.

Trapped, powerless and penniless, she suffered in this place until finally she worked up the courage to escape. She returned home and soon married. However the brothel sent men to find her and force her back. They beat her up. When her husband tried to protect her, he was beaten too. She found herself not only back in the Mumbai brothel – but also pregnant. When her son was born, she was fortunate to get him back to his father.

Ashani owed 20,000 rupees, or around AU$400 but she was earning only a few dollars each day, and she was forced to pay rental for her cubicle in the brothel and for her room, board and clothing. She would realistically never be able to pay off the debt. She was enslaved. Ten women from Stop the Traffik readily agreed to pitch in $40 each to buy Ashani’s freedom.

I am ashamed to admit that Ashani’s story speaks to my mind but not to my heart. Perhaps this is related to what social scientists have discovered about the nature of empathy. Research has revealed a clear ‘empathy gap’ whereby our empathy is essentially geared primarily toward people we identify with, eg. neighbours or others who seem to be ‘like ourselves’ (2). This quirk of nature means it is harder for me as a white middle class Jewish Hasidic man to connect with the experience of an impoverished, brown skinned, non-Jewish, woman forced to work as a prostitute.

The challenge of the empathy gap must be met with a principled engagement with causes such as modern slavery. I look for inspiration from the prophets. Only a few days ago on Yom Kippur we read from Isaiah (3) about a person who cried out to God, "I have fasted but you have not seen!” God replied, “You fast but with a clenched fist!”  This is not the fast God desires. Instead, God demands that we “Loose the chains of wickedness...to let the oppressed go free and to break every yoke.”  The highest form of charity is not to share more crumbs from our tables but to ensure that more people have a seat at our tables of plenty.

My faith does condemn or shame me for having abundant material possessions. On the contrary, commentary tells us that God made the Israelites “ride on the high places” (4) (plural), giving them both material and spiritual blessings (5). Privilege, like power is an opportunity that can be harnessed for doing good but which also carries risk and responsibility. The Torah phrases the danger as the Israelites having become “fat and kicked” (6) also becoming “thick”, losing capacity to understand “fine truths” (7). Equally, privilege can dull people’s capacity to connect with the  brutal reality of the 46 million slaves who are, of course, really people just like me.    

The products of modern day slavery are found in the homes of ordinary citizens in every western city and town. They are present in our shops and supermarkets. Some years ago I was inspired by a teacher  who told me how her students learned to look for a Fair Trade label (8) on a soccer ball, so that when they play sport they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  

The Torah calls us to “cry freedom in the land for all its inhabitants!” (9). This phrase is surprising because the context is freeing slaves rather than everyone. However, a 17th century scholar explained that “in any country where freedom is incomplete even if only a few are slaves, all the people are slaves. Slavery is an affliction which afflicts both slave and master” (10).

Having focused on these traditions, I have jumped the empathy gap and now care more about my fellow humans who deserve freedom as much as I do. I commit to doing what I can to advance this cause.   

1. http://stopthetraffik.com.au/freedomsunday/ for another version of this sermon that was prepared in collaboration with Shoshana, the version on my blog is closer to the sermon I actually delivered.  
2. Prinz, J, Is Empathy Necessary For Morality, http://subcortex.com/IsEmpathyNecessaryForMoralityPrinz.pdf accessed 14.04.2015
3. Isaiah 58:3-7
4. Deuteronomy 32:13
5. Samson Raphael Hirsch on Deuteronomy 32:13
6. Deuteronomy 32:15
7. Seforno on Deuteronomy 32:15
8. Stop the Traffik http://stopthetraffik.com.au/  is a rich source of information for us when we shop for clothing and for foods that are sadly connected with slavery, including fish, coffee, and chocolate.
9. Leviticus 25:10
10. Pnei Yehoshua, Joshua son of Joseph Falk, 1593-1648,

God’s children - disowned? Political, social justice and religious perspectives - Haazinu

under creative commons license,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ original at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/route79/2570725825/

I object to the idea of God completely rejecting people. If we accept the proposition that God Himself rejected a group utterly, then why should mere mortals restrain their own bigotry or oppression? I am committed to the principle of the intrinsic worth of every human. On Wednesday this week, I was dressed in a ritual white robe, fasting and praying to my “father in heaven” for atonement. I feel cleansed and have a warm peaceful feeling. Yet in Judaism there is an argument against my assumption of an unconditional parent-child relationship between God and me.

We have an ambiguous verse in this week’s reading of Haazinu. If translated literally it reads:  “Destroyed/Corrupted to him, no, his children, their blemish, [a] crooked and twisted generation”. 1 One way of reading the first part of this text is “Corrupted to Him [namely to God, have they, the Jews, who are] not [any more considered to be] His children, [and this lost status] is their blemish…” The idea is that the status of being God’s children can be lost due to disobedience”. 2

While I can see the advantages of not setting one group apart as God’s children, I am uncomfortable with the idea of any group being deemed “God’s disowned children”. One source for the notion of a conditional relationship is in the Talmud, 3 but it comes not from the great sages but out of the mouth of an evil person, the Roman Governor, poster-boy for what not to do in Inter-faith dialogue, Turnus-Rufus the wicked. 4 The Governor asserted in an argument with Rabbi Akiva about the merit of charity, that when the Jews do not do the will of God they are no longer called his children but rather his servants. 5 He argued that because God does not provide sustenance to poor Jews, other Jews should not interfere in God’s plan by giving them charity.

Rabbi Akiva did not argue the point, which some might take as him agreeing with it. 6 I suggest Rabbi Akiva was focused on the main game, which was the attempted justification of the Roman cruel oppression of the minority exiled Jews, rather than the word play in the theological argument. 7 Rabbi Akiva, ignored the arrogant and flawed 8 attempt by Turnus Rufus to determine Jewish theology and instead drew his attention to the prophet’s call, to bring the “oppressed poor into your home”. 9 There is a pointed reference to the cruelty of the oppressive Romans and a clever move that enabled him to recapture the moral high ground as he negotiated the position of his people.

However this argument goes back even earlier between sages of the Talmud themselves, 10 but I have seen it argued that this dispute was resolved with the proponent of conditional “child status”, conceding in the end to his opponent 11 that in fact even when the Israelites behave poorly, they are castigated as it is our reading of Haazinu as “Sons in whom there is no faith”, 12 or “foolish sons”.   13

I find the alternative interpretations to our text above about “His children” more plausible. It has been translated as “They have corrupted for themselves, their good deeds, His beloved children”. 14 Or, in another interpretation it is the ‘Jews themselves that have turned their back on the relationship with God rejecting their status as His children in their hearts’. 15 Yet, God insists in the very next verse that the Jews should recognise Him as their father, God asking rhetorically “Is he not your father?!” 16 On the day after Yom Kippur I feel a little closer to my Father in heaven, whose parenthood, at least from His perspective was never in question. I pray that all of God’s children, regardless of their beliefs or behaviour be shown His love and compassion, and are valued by their fellow humans unconditionally.

Notes

1.    Deuteronomy 32:5, שִׁחֵת לוֹ לֹּא בָּנָיו מוּמָם דּוֹר עִקֵּשׁ וּפְתַלְתֹּל
2.    Note that in Hebrew the same word “Lo- לא” is used both for no and not. This view is taken by highly respected classic commentators including Ramban, also known as Nachmanides, of the 13th century, Abarbanel 15th Century and more recent commentators: Ohr Hachayim 18th Century, Samson Raphael Hirsch 19th Century. The view of the most commonly studied and very authoritative Rashi from the 11th century is ambiguous. He states "they were his sons, but the corruption that they corrupted is their blemish”. One prominent supra-commentary, known as Mizrahi, emphasises the past tense in Rashi’s comment. “they were” [his children] meaning at the beginning, because it cannot be that they would be called His children after they have acted corruptly. This view seemed to be shared by Sifsei Chachomim, but it is disputed by Be’er Basadeh who asserts that Rashi sees the damage in the context of a non-negotiable parent child relationship, in which God is as protective of His children as one would be toward the apple of their eye but because of the sin God hides his face. Yet, he argues that the relationship is not confined to the past, prior to the sin as we can see from the way Rashi continues to refers to the Jews as God’s children in Rashi’s very next sentence. Sefer Hazikaron, agreed with Mizrahi that the relationship is conditional but also notes the evidence for a non-negotiable relationship cited by Be’er Basadeh, and states that he doesn’t understand it, and that further study is needed. 
3.    Talmud Bava Basra, 10a
4.    http://arachimusa.org/ArticleDetail.asp?ArticleID=1529
5.    Talmud Bava Basra, 10a
6.    This might explain the direct quote from Turnus Rufus turning up in Ohr Hachayim but being attributed to those whose “memory is a blessing”, in Ohr Hachayim’s commentary to Deuteronomy 32:5
7.    See Maharsha on Talmud Bava Basra, 10a, beginning with “this makes them liable for hell”.
8.    Torah Temimah on Deuteronomy 14:1, refutes the binary proposition put forward by Turnus Rufus that Jews can either be the children or God as they are referred in some verses, which he asserts apply when they do the will of God, and they are refered to as servants of Gods in other verses which would apply when they don’t do the will of God. In fact, Moses himself is called a servant of God as a form of high praise, rather than punishment. 
9.    Isaiah 58, read as the Yom Kippur Haftorah, translation follows Maharsha’s commentary
10.    Talmud Kidushin 36a
11.    Torah Temimah on Deuteronomy 14:1 asserts that this implied in the Sifre on Deuteronomy 32:5
12.    Deuteronomy 32:20
13.    Jeremiah 4
14.    This is a composite of the translations by the classic translators, Unkelus (1st Century) and Yonatan Ben Uziel (One of the Tanaaim of the Talmud, possibly ever earlier than Unkelus), Rashbam (12th century) follows a similar approach, the cantillation marks for the words suggest a pause between the words “no/not” and “his sons” with the word Lo, marked by a Tipcha. Malbim (19th Century) takes the commentary into a completely different direction, which also does not follow the approach of God disowning His children.
15.    Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 32:5 and 6
16.    Deuteronomy 32:6