Showing posts with label Honor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Honor. Show all posts

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Naming a Daughter: Aspiration, Recognition & Feminism


My wife and I were blessed with a baby daughter last Friday, after having five sons. In Jewish teachings there is a connection between the name and character[i]. In selecting a name for our daughter we wanted something distinctive but traditional that would connect her to a biblical role model. Personally, I was also concerned about the way that women are often thought of as the wife of this great person or the mother of another, rather than a person in their own right. I also don’t like the way some girls’ names reflect a view of girls being pretty little things rather than full human beings. Traditionally one consideration in selecting a name is to honour and remember family members, but with four grandmothers between the two parents, we could not honour all of them.

Shifra – Heroic Career woman or Mother?
One strong female characters in the Torah is the Egypt-wide chief midwife for Hebrews[ii] Shifra, who along with her colleague Puah defies the Pharaoh when he commands them to murder the Hebrew male babies[iii].  This courageous choice is the first and perhaps the only example of civil disobedience that resists racism in the Torah. The name is also related to the Hebrew word Shfoferet, a tube because Shifra would resuscitate babies who had stopped breathing by blowing through a tube[iv]. While many sources identify Shifra as being Jochebed, the mother of Moses[v], other texts identify her as a convert[vi], and as an Egyptian[vii], whose children or husband remains unknown and irrelevant to her identity, just as they are absent in a plain reading of the Torah text itself.  

I wonder about what message there is in the commentary that links Shifra with Jochebed. Is it about the greatness of Moses’ lineage, or reflecting a view that a great and complete woman is not just one who interacts with a monarch and defies him but also one who is a mother as well? There is a moving prophecy that reassures men who have no children “let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree”. For so says the Lord to the eunuchs who will keep My Sabbaths and will choose what I desire and hold fast to My covenant, "I will give them in My house and in My walls a place and a name, better than sons and daughters; an everlasting name I will give him, which will not be discontinued[viii]." Surely we can read this passage as saying there is a value to a woman beyond motherhood. Equally, I ask myself whether my own interest in the less prominent commentaries that could be interpreted as positioning Shifra as a career woman rather than a mother reflects a lack of recognition of the importance of motherhood for women and its contribution to the wellbeing of children and to society generally.

To be Named Or Not to be Named
Our daughter’s second and third names were given to her to be named after my paternal grandmother Golda Kastel A.H.[ix] and my wife’s maternal grandmother Bracha Stark A.H., both very strong women who managed to both support their husbands and shine as people in their own right.  In selecting two grandmothers, we highlighted two out of four.  

The issue of whether names are acknowledged or not mentioned is a significant one in the Torah reading, Tetzaveh [x], which was read on the Shabbat on which our daughter was named. The special clothing worn by the high priest in the temple worship included diamonds in which the names of each of the twelve tribes of Israel were engraved “before God, on his two shoulders, as a remembrance[xi]. The names would also be carved a second time into twelve precious stones on a breastplate worn by the high priest[xii].

The opposite side of the equation is also found in this portion. It is the only portion in the Torah that occurs during the life time of Moses[xiii], where he is not mentioned. According to commentary this reflects a selfless choice by Moses, in which he offers a desperate plea to God to forgive the Jews for the sin of the Golden Calf. Moses says to God, “And now, (God) forgive their sin, and if not, erase me please from Your book (the Torah) that You wrote[xiv].”  While God essentially forgives his people, the words of Moses about being erased from the “book” are still partially fulfilled in his absence from this portion[xv].

Not Named But Still Present
The absence of Moses’ name in the Torah portion does not mean he is not present. One way of thinking about it is that his role is more of a background role. Moses might have felt disappointed when, as the sanctuary for God begins to come together, the prominent roles are filled by others - Betzalel is the architect and chief designer while Aaron will perform the key rituals. Where is Moses in all this? To comfort him, without altering the reality of his less overtly prominent role, God tells Moses three times “and you[xvi]” will command the people relating to the olive oil, draw Aaron close and instruct the designers of the priestly clothing. The Torah has a special tune or accent in which it is traditionally read, with louder and longer pitches or intonation for emphasis, all three times the words “and you” have these strong accents[xvii].  Suggesting the importance of Moses’ role in the sanctuary, the spiritual illumination symbolized by the oil and the worship by Aaron[xviii].

Applying the same principle to our question of the names not given to our daughter, I think our daughter can draw strength and inspiration from the two grandmothers after whom she has not been named. Their lives, character, choices and guidance have indirectly helped shape the person she will become, by their parenting of Shifra’s own grandparents.

Conclusion
Names matter. Names can mean a lot of different things, depending on how they are interpreted. The name Shifra also means beautiful or to make beautiful, for example. I trust that our Shifra Golda Bracha will find her own way to construct her identity and draw some strength from great women and men who came before her. This will involve prioritising between public and private roles, at home and/or at work. It will also require recognition that recognition itself is far from the only criteria of value. As my third “honorary grandmother” Stella Cornelius used to say “you can accomplish a lot if you don’t care who gets the credit”. Welcome to our world, Shifra Golda Bracha Kastel.



[i] There is a story told about a student at the House of Torah study whose name was Chatfa which means to grab. After something went missing in the Yeshiva, this student wiped his wet hands on another student’s clothes, which showed a lack of respect for the property of others.  When he was confronted about this he admitted to the theft. This vindicated the view of Rabbi Meir about the link between names and character. I have been unable to find the source of this story.
[ii] Ibn Ezra
[iii] Exodus 1:15-21
[iv] Torah Shlaima p38, note 165, also saw elsewhere but can’t find the source
[v] Sifre, Talmud Sotah 11b, Rashi
[vi] Yalkut Yehoshua cited in Chumash Torah Temima
[vii] Midrash Tadsheh, end Chapter 1 21, Imre Noam, Paaneach Raza, R. Y. of Vienna, the latter two suggest it is would be implausible for the Pharaoh to demand Jewish midwives murder the babies because according to Jewish law one must be prepared to sacrifice one’s life rather than take an innocent life,  all cited in Torah Shlaima, p.38
[viii] Isaaia 56:3-5
[ix] Alehah Hashalom, upon her, peace.
[x] Exodus 27:20- 30:10
[xi] Exodus 28:9-12
[xii] Exodus 28:21
[xiii] The middle three books of the Torah, the last book Deuteronomy is almost entirely the words of Moses himself. 
[xiv] Exodus 32:32
[xv] Midrash Hane’elam Zohar Chadash 6b, cited in Torah Shlaima p.139
[xvi] Exodus 27:20, 28:1 and 28:3
[xvii][xvii] The accents are called, Gershayim, Pazer and Reviee
[xviii][xviii] Alshich, cited in Leibowitz, N, New Studies in Shemot p.526



Thursday, December 1, 2011

Self Promotion & Trust at Work and Between Groups - Vayetze


Self righteous and occupying the "moral high" ground, or
at least positioning oneself to appear to be good one

One of Orthodox Judaism’s most prominent religious authorities was deeply distrustful of Christian intentions in initiating Interfaith dialogue[1]. He was concerned that it was a plot to convert Jews, a proposition based on generations of bad blood, but one that would be discredited by the evidence of the following fifty years of dialogue. Trust between Jews and Muslims can be particularly difficult to achieve but with many notable exceptions such as my own experience in Together For Humanity[2], and projects such as JCMA[3], Project Abraham[4], the Three Faiths Forum[5] and Jihadi Jew[6].

Another set of relationships that can be difficult revolve around work. In both inter-religious and work relationships one of the destructive dynamics is the attempt by one party or both trying to position themselves as “the good one”, and the other as “the bad one”. Once I became aware of this dynamic, watching people engage it makes me want to scream. This is a discussion about how trust and honour are earned and given, or lost and withdrawn. 

Clear as Mud
Some people like to combine a game of positioning themselves as virtuous, with also keeping things as vague as they can, to maximize their own options later.  An example of this double whammy is when Jacob proposes the payment for his work for Laban, he does so in a manner that has become the standard expression for clarity still in use among religious Jews today, בְּרָחֵל בִּתְּךָ הַקְּטַנָּה. He agrees to work for seven years “for Rachel, your daughter, the younger one[7]. The decent response to that proposal would be an equally clear confirmation that the terms were either acceptable or not. Instead Laban offers a dishonest[8], “shifty, vague and ambiguous[9]” response with this self glorifying statement “"It is better that I give her to you than I should give her to another man. Stay with me[10]". ‘Trust me’, he seems to say brazenly when he is the last person with the right to demand trust.

Vague Language
A Laban type response is particularly frustrating if one is already concerned about the honesty of the other party or whether their expectations will be realised in the end, as Jacob was[11]. Commentary[12] suggests that Laban had already decided then to give Jacob his daughter Leah instead of Jacob’s beloved Rachel. Craftily, he also uses the word “give” which implies a gift to Jacob rather than an exchange and weakens Jacob’s position. Then in the guise of wanting the pleasure of Jacob’s company he throws in a clause “Stay with me” that will force Jacob to work under the watchful eyes of Laban.  Laban will later swindle Jacob, by repeatedly changing the terms of the deal between them[13].  

Over the years in my interfaith work, I have received some meaningless vague big-picture-yes responses to interfaith cooperation that in fact turned out to mean “I don’t have any desire to be involved but I want to sound good, or maybe make you feel good so I will imply a yes when the real answer is no”.

Brother in Scams?
A natural response to feeling cheated whether at work on in the inter-group context is to respond in kind. My assumption would be that “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that one should never cheat and that while it is a better use of time to focus on sincere people, it is wrong to give up on sincerity.  I wonder what messages can be found in the story of Jacob and Laban. The Talmud[14] elaborates on Jacob’s comment to Rachel that he was her father’s brother[15], with the following exchange.
Jacob to Rachel: Mary me.
Rachel: Yes. But my father is a swindler and you won’t be able to manage with him.
Jacob: I am his brother in swindling[16]
Rachel: Is it allowed for a Righteous person to engage in swindling?
Jacob: Yes, “with a pure one you show yourself pure; but with the perverse one, you deal crookedly[17].

Implications of a Licence For the Low Road
One recent article, discusses the difference between Jacob’s two names. It relates the name Jacob to his grabbing Esau’s heel during their birth and represents “attacking at the heel; … to deal, sometimes, deceitfully and surreptitiously”. It also makes a link to current political realities, making the comment that “when we are surrounded by 140 million people wishing to destroy us, we cannot always go with the 'high-road' behaviour. We have to come back to the practices of 'Jacob’[18]”. I lack the expertise to comment on matters of defence and I do not presume to give anyone advice about the Torah sanctioned right to self defence, yet this type of interpretation is one that would make me and many other Jews both in Israel and outside it very uncomfortable.

Jacob’s Actions; a Licence?
A simple reading of the text might yield the conclusion that Jacob carried out his threat to be Laban’s brother in deception. Consider how he creatively implements a profit sharing agreement with Laban. The deal was that Jacob would remove all the speckled and spotted goats and all the brown sheep, then any animals that will be born with these characteristics will belong to Jacob[19]. Jacob then puts spotted or brown sticks in front of the animals when they are in heat, this tactic results in many goats and sheep being born with the appearances that lands them in Jacob’s possession. 

Interpretations of Sticks as Evidence against Defrauding Fraudsters
Commentaries seek to justify Jacob’s action. The simplest is that the sticks method of genetic modification does not work, and the result was due to divine intervention[20]. Another view is that there was a condition in the agreement with Laban that allowed Jacob to use the sticks and he had his permission[21].

Alternatively, Jacob only used this practice after some goats were born with the spots without intervention. He was concerned that these goats would have offspring without spots that would rightfully belong to him, but Laban would claim them because they have no spots. He used the sticks only for his legitimately earned spotted goats[22].

One can argue about the plausibility of these justifications, but that is less important than the implication that it would have been wrong for Jacob to rob Laban, even though Laban was a thief. There are other interpretations that might not support this approach[23]. Perhaps the most compelling point is Jacob’s assertion that he served Laban loyally with all his strength[24], working and be consumed by scorching heat during the day and frost by night[25].

The Face Game
Laban works relentlessly on putting Jacob down in comparison to his righteous self. When he first invites him to stay he declares but you are my brother. The word “but” is interpreted as “you have been distanced from all your relatives because of your deceiving your brother twice but you are my relative and I won’t distance you[26](because I am so good of course). When Jacob finally escapes from the toxic situation with Laban, Laban pursues him and offers this gem. “What have you done?! you lead my daughters like captives of the sword…why didn’t you tell me and I would send you away with songs, drums and the lyre. You didn’t let me kiss my sons and daughters, now you have done foolishly[27]

Laban then accuses Jacob of stealing his occult artefact called the Teraphim[28]. Jacob explodes, after a fiery defence of his integrity he makes a curse for anyone who stole Laban’s Teraphim. Unbeknown to him Rachel had stolen them[29]. Our tradition teaches us that Jacob’s curse was realised[30] when Rachel died a short time later at the age of 36[31]. While her sin of stealing the Teraphim is said to have caused her not to be buried in the cave of the righteous (in double cave in Hebron)[32], but it is also a direct result of Jacob’s curse. This is the second error in judgement that Jacob makes, the other he is assuming that the shepherds he sees hanging around a well are neglecting their duties when in fact they had a perfectly legitimate reason to be there[33].  

Conclusion
Rather than using our energy convincing people that we are “the good one”, we should just be good and let our behaviour and character speak for itself. It is very sad that people so often demand trust when they don’t deserve it. Perhaps we can resist judging people who like our prominent Rabbi at the beginning of the post who might have heard or seen too much to be able to trust again. Yet, we must thank God, there are not that many Laban’s around and we should not assume that “they are all like that” or that the way things were, is the way they still are. We must pick ourselves up after our trust has been betrayed and trust all over again, albeit a bit more alert.  There are many decent beautiful people in our world of all faiths and skills sets, let us work with them. 


[1] Feinstien, R. Moshe, Igros Moshe, vol. 6, p 278, letter with a ruling dated February or March 1967, Adar 1, 5727
[7] Genesis 29:18
[8] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, adds the word “Rmiyu”, deception, to his translation of “And Laban said” in verse 19.
[9] Leibowitz, N, New Studies in Bereshit, p.321, Jewish Agency, Special Edition, Lambda Publishers, Brookly New York
[10] Genesis 29:19
[11] Rashi Genesis 29:18
[12] Ohr Hachayim on Genesis 29:19
[13] Genesis 31:7
[14] Talmud Megilah 13b
[15] Genesis 29:12
[16] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel has Jacob saying “I am a swindler, and clever, more that he is is and he will have no permission/ability to do bad to me as the word of God is in my assistance
[17] Samuel II, 22:27, with slight variation also in Psalms 18:27
[19] Genesis 30:32
[20] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
[21] Bchor Shor, Ohr Zarua Hagadol, evidence for this proposition is the fact that Jacob did this openly in full view of all the shepherds for six years where it would have been impossible that it would not become known to Laban
[22] Radak in the name of his father
[23] Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Hatosafot and Ohr Hachayim both have explanations that involve Laban violating the agreement which justifies Jacob taking counter-measures to protect what was his, with the former referring to the phrase “with a pure one you show yourself pure; but with the perverse one, you deal crookedly”.
[24] Genesis 31:6
[25] Genesis 31:39
[26] Chizkuni
[27] Genesis 31:26-28
[28] Ibn Ezra describes the Teraphim as being part of a practice in which a skull of a first born would be used in magical practices
[29] Genesis 31:31-32
[30] Beresheet Rabba 74, Rashi
[31] Seder Olam (Order of the World) Chapter 2, an alternative view is that she was 45 (Sefer Hayashar, cited in Torah Shlaima)
[32] Midrash Aseret Hadibrot 40, cited in Torah Shlaima vol 2, p1236
[33] Genesis 29:7-8

Friday, May 6, 2011

Shame and Honor Killing?, Cohen Man’s daughter burning

Jews do not practice honor killing. I think it is an unjust, cruel and sexist practice.  How do I respond to the verse “and the daughter of a Cohen man becomes desecrated through adultery she desecrates her father; she shall be burned in fire[1]”.

Traditional commentaries explain it as follows “If he had been treated as holy (before), he will now be treated as mundane, (if he had been treated with) honor, now he will be treated with disgrace, as they will say cursed be the one who gave birth to this one, who raised this one[2]. She has desecrated and shamed his honor[3]. Or even more explicit “because she embarrassed her father she should be burned in fire[4]”.

This penalty only applies to a married woman She would not be burned if she is unmarried[5]. It is important to note that although the Torah states that she is being punished because she disgraced her father, this is only to explain the particular method of death[6] not the death penalty itself which is the penalty for adultery.

It should be said that the death penalty has not be part of Jewish religious law for 2000 years. A Torah court, called a Beth Din does not have the authority to impose capital punishment. Even when Torah courts did have the Authority to impose capital punishment, it was only a special court of 23 and traditions vary about rare an event this was, with one opinion that a Court that killed once every 70 years was a “murderous court”, with another view putting it as once every 7 years. There were strict requirements, for a sin to warrant the death penalty, there needed to be two witnesses, who also warn the offender prior to the act that this act is liable to lead to a death penalty, it is highly unlikely that a person who carry out a sin like this one in front of two witnesses and certainly not after being warned. This suggests that the death penalty is more a hypothetical signal about the severity of the deed than a actual practical punishment.  

In terms of this particular penalty, we might have one instance where it was nearly imposed. Tamar, the daughter in-law of Judah had been married to two of Judah’s sons, first Er, and after Er died she married Onan who also died. She was then promised Judah’s third son, Shela “when he grows up”. When she saw that Shela had grown up but the marriage did not proceed, she covered her face and stood at the road, where Judah saw her, took her for a harlot and slept with her, without realising that it was Tamar. Around three months tater, Judah is told “your daughter in-law Tamar has committed harlotry, she is also pregnant to harlotry, Judah states “take her out and she should be burned[7]”. This is explained on the basis that Tamar was the daughter of a Cohen[8], that she was the daughter of Shem[9].

There is an alternative view that Tamar was never going to be burned but rather would be branded with a mark “between her face as a sign that she was a prostitute[10]” While another view as that Judah was following common law of his time rather than Torah law[11].

With the knowledge I have been able to gather, the Torah’s capital punishment for the straying daughter of a Cohen is different to honor killing in that
1) In practice it probably never happened at all, perhaps only extremely rarely, and has certainly not happened for the last two thousand years.  
2) If this punishment was to be imposed, it could only happen through due process.
3) The Torah is only talking about a married woman who commits adultery.

These distinctions don’t make it all ok for the modern reader, especially one who sees sexual issues as being a private matter as long at is between consenting adults, Torah obviously has a different view of this. The one factor I find particularly hard to understand is the emphasis on the father’s honor in what I would have thought was primarily a sin toward God. Of course there is some impact on her father, and mother for that matter. Shame is a very real painful experience. Perhaps there is a suggestion here about the responsibility to consider the impact of the behaviour of family members of those in a position of public and especially religious leadership.  



[1] Leviticus 21:9
[2] Talmud Sanhedrin 52a
[3] Rashi on the Torah
[4] R. Saadia Gaon, cited in commentary on Leviticus 21:9, in Otzar Mefarshei Hapshat At Hatorah, Vayikra, compiled by Naftali Greenbaum, published by Machon Hapshat, Chevrat, Tif’eret Bachrim Hatzalat Hanoar, Israel,
[5] Talmud Sanhedrin 50b
[6] Burning is not being put in a fire, but rather having hot lead poured down the throat
[7] Genesis 38:24
[8] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, and Rashi
[9] Rashi
[10] Rabbi Yehudah Hachasid cited in Baal Haturim on Genesis 38:24
[11] Bchor Shor