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

The Humanity of Perpetrators

I have been thinking about three people who can be described as perpetrators of crimes: one, who inspired me in Bondi last week; another is a member of the group of men and boys who attacked several Jewish people on a Friday night in Bondi. The third case involves a man we will call H who was arrested this week and charged with sexual abuse. I also seek some insights about these events from the Torah reading that tells of a villain named Esau and the context of his upbringing.

Last week, I encountered a young man named Jimmy, with an inspirational story: Jimmy has a history of crime, stealing his first car when he was 12 years old. Jimmy is of Aboriginal heritage but knew nothing about his heritage growing up. Later, he was reticent about telling anyone about his heritage because he thought they would think he was looking for a handout. He was ashamed of being Aboriginal. He told his mother he was disappointed with his first 8-month jail sentence. He considered it too short for him - he actually preferred a longer sentence which would have given him some status. Some years later, now the father of a young girl, he received an 8-year sentence. During this period, he made a choice to go straight because “I didn’t want to not be there for my daughter - to be the kind of dad that my dad was, never being there for me”.


Jimmy got permission for day release from prison to work in the community- based “Our Big Kitchen” in Bondi, where he was welcomed. He developed a talent for baking Challah (the Jewish Sabbath bread).  He was very shy at first, even running away when asked to talk to a group of pre-school children, but eventually his confidence grew. Last week he addressed a group of Muslim, Jewish and other students at an interschool program I led under the banner of Together For Humanity. He powerfully illustrated the idea that every human being should be thought of as a human being; the crimes or lesser sins committed by people are one important element of who they are, but not their essence. Jimmy is rising above his crimes by his choices.


The second case is far from inspiring. I have known the Jewish family who were attacked on a Bondi street since the 1990’s; one teaches at a school my children attend. She is a warm, kind and personable woman.  I am disgusted by the attack on them and especially about the significant anti-Semitic nature of the attack.

I was saddened to learn that some of the perpetrators of the attack on this lovely family were apparently Pacific Islanders , although somewhat relieved that the attackers were not Muslims. The organisation I lead, Together For Humanity, works intensively with Arabic Muslim and Pacific Islander teenagers not much older than this alleged perpetrator. There are significant challenges for these boys who are coming from a different world, where there is a great emphasis on family and different ways of showing respect. Pacific Islander students show respect by looking down and “not answering back” in a culture (ours) that values eye contact and verbal communication when dealing with a problem (see embedded video that features Pacific Islander Academic Dr Jioji Ravulo taken from  http://www.differencedifferently.edu.au/prof_learning/) . Newspapers quoted the boy’s mother talking about his problems with alcohol. Like Jimmy, he has spent time in Juvenile Detention, and - I suspect - sought glory or pleasure in “badness”. Unlike Jimmy, he has not yet made a choice to turn his life around.

Very disturbing in a different way is the recent arrest for sex offences of a man I knew in the 1990’s as a fun, dedicated, altruistic, somewhat wild, community volunteer, always smiling, often busy helping people with Mezuza scrolls and making their homes Kosher. Normally, when I hear about sexual abuse, I think about the terrible ordeal of the victims, the perpetrators being viewed as one- dimensional, evil monsters. Yet, this man H, whatever terrible harm he has inflicted on his young victims and the absolute primacy of justice for the current and potential victims, is a multi-dimensional human being. In addition to the tragedy and the terrible costs borne by his victims, it is very sad for him and his family. I shudder to think about what darkness in his soul drove him to commit the acts he allegedly committed. 


Esau, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, is generally thought of as a villain in Judaism. Unlike Jimmy, Esau’s father is not absent. In fact, we are told that he loved Esau although the love is conditional upon the meat he is able to hunt and bring to his dad . Still, it is not smooth sailing. We are told that his mother Rebecca loved Jacob. This is understood to mean that she did not love Esau because she recognised his wickedness . It is further suggested that it is, only when the “the lads grow up ”, that anyone pays attention to their unique natures: Esau was a man of the field while Jacob sat and studied in tents. The parents fail to recognize or notice Esau’s character, with all the “strength, energy, agility, and courage that lie slumbering in this child ”. Esau was the first born son in a culture in which the first born was to be treated with a measure of deference. Esau is further alienated when Jacob figures out a way to free himself from these customs  by purchasing the Birth-Right for a pot of lentils , legally displacing Esau from his elevated position.

In many conversations about offences, there is an either/or approach to the issues. One is either tough on crime with mandatory sentences, pink prison clothes and throwing away the key, or one is a bleeding heart, soft on crime, caring only about the perpetrators and not the victims. This is a false choice. We can forcefully condemn crimes against people because of their race and the exploitation of children, and insist that, no matter what their circumstances, people are responsible for their choices. At the same time, we can also recognise the humanity, the struggles and social context of those human beings who have chosen at certain moments of their life to be perpetrators . May we succeed as a community to maintain justice and order while also improving the conditions in which young people and older people find themselves, so that they are less likely to be drawn towards choosing to do evil.






References
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/the-mother-of-the-boy-accused-of-racehate-attack-in-bondi-works-in-a-jewish-nursing-home/story-fni0cx12-1226748562990
  video by Dr Jioji Ravulo at http://www.differencedifferently.edu.au/prof_learning/
  Genesis 25:28
  Seforno
  Genesis 25:27
  Samson Raphael Hirsch
  Radak
  Genesis 25:30-33
  Do  not judge your fellow until you have been in their place, Pirkey Avod 2:4 as discussed in Tanya 30