An Understanding Heart; Choice or gift?

Muslim and Jewish students form relationships at a
Together For Humanity run interschool program,
in Sydney Australia. Some prefer to sit with their
peers as can be seen by  the clusters of green and blue
school uniforms. They are gently coaxed to develop greater
comfort with each other, during an interschool cooking
activity at Our Big Kitchen this week. 

Yesterday I observed Jewish and Muslim children and young adults responding to each other with varying degrees of love.  There were young girls from two schools one Muslim the other Jewish, hugging each other good bye and boys engaged in cool and comfortable friendly chatting.  One boy seemed less sure about it all, saying he would miss the others, then adding; “or maybe not”. 

The young adults also ranged from open hearted sharing, moving reflection and good will to two much more guarded young men, who seemed to me (perhaps wrongly) to approach the whole thing with suspicion.  It set me thinking about the process of acquiring understanding.

A gift?

It seems to me that understanding is at least to some extent a gift from our parents, our experiences or even from God either in our essential nature, or some other act of grace.  This seems to be confirmed by this phrase from our reading this week about Moses’ speech to his people at the end of a 40 year trek through the desert and on the last day of his life. “Moses called all of Israel and said to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, to all his servants, and to all his land; …the great signs and wonders (Miracles). Yet until this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to know, eyes to see and ears to hear[i]”.

In ten years of bridge building work, I have learned that understanding cannot be created on demand, nor can it be rushed.  It needs to be given the chance to develop.  In the case of the Jews in the desert it is only after 40 years they can understand what happened with the gift of hindsight[ii].  Perhaps what is needed is a change of circumstances, such as the death of the charismatic Moses (on “this day”) for people to understand the full picture, in this case the more important factor which is the hand of God[iii].

The Choice & responsibility argument

If people are to be held responsible for their actions, it would be because we assume them to have the ability to make choices.  Commentaries, therefore, reinterpret the idea of “God not giving people the heart to know” in ways that shift the responsibility back to the people. One simply adds a question mark, so it is a rhetorical question rather than a statement, “Did God not give you a heart..?![iv] One suggests that God did not give the people a heart for the purpose of forgetting him, as they did, but rather for the purpose of choosing to know…[v]. Another argues that the intent here is about God’s role being limited to being the ultimate first cause of everything[vi], so the argument is that it could be said that God did not, in the end, provide them with a heart to understand but this was because of their own rebelliousness[vii] and their choice to test (rather than trust) God and to forget the miracles they had seen[viii]. 

A combination

Understanding certainly involves some effort on our part, yet much of what we achieve in our understanding of our fellow man or of God is a gift. One commentator expressed it as follows, “God favours man with understanding. But God will only bestow this gift on one who makes a genuine effort…[ix]” In one mystical tradition, through our good deeds we become worthy of being gifted with additional and loftier layers of our souls[x]. 

This combination is seen in one text that combines advice to avoid judging and disparaging people by understanding their faults as being “caused” by their difficult circumstances, yet also asserting that regardless of what situations people find themselves in, they are still responsible for their choices and behaviour[xi].

The Very Ugly Man

Rabbi Eliezer was once riding on a donkey on the coast, he was feeling really happy because he had studied a lot of Torah[xii].  Then he chanced upon a very ugly man, (not just in the physical sense but it was clear to the Rabbi that the man had an ugly character[xiii]).

The man greeted him, "Shalom, Rabbi!" Rabbi Eliezer did not return the greeting. Instead, he stared at the man and said, "Empty (headed) one! Are all the inhabitants of your town as ugly as you?"

The man replied: " Why don't you tell the craftsman who made me, “how ugly is the vessel you made?"

Because he realised that he had done wrong, Rabbi Eliezer went down from his donkey, prostrated himself and begged the man for forgiveness. .. [xiv]

Judgemental and Smug

I remember some years ago feeling quite judgmental and hostile toward a man who I thought had a serious deficit of understanding and capacity for empathy.   I realised that like Rabbi Eliezer, I objected not to his actions but his nature.  I realised that I was giving myself credit for my nature, which I believe is essentially a gift and blaming him for defects in his nature which essentially was not his own doing.   I learned to appreciate him for his strengths, while still not liking some of his less endearing attitudes.   Remarkably, after I accepted him for who he was, I noticed a gradual shift in some of his thinking and behaviour.

Conclusion

Understanding is both a gift and a choice.  On Let us not feel superior to those who have not yet reached the degree of understanding that we enjoy, only partly due to our own efforts.  Still, those of us who “understand” have an obligation and opportunities to try to provide opportunities for those not yet blessed with understanding hearts.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 29:1-3

[ii] Melechet Machshavet, cited in Leibovitz, N, Studies in Devarim, Elizer Library, Department For Torah education…the Joint Authority for Jewish, Zionist Education, Jerusalem, P.292

[iii] Meshech Chochma

[iv] Abarbanel

[v] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, in his translation he simply adds the words “for the purpose of forgetting him, as you did, but rather” , between “has not given you a heart”, and “to know”

[vi] Ibn Ezra

[vii] Seforno

[viii] Ibn Ezra

[ix] Malbin, cited and translated in Leibovitz

[x] This is my understanding of a central theme in the Ben Ish Chai’s writing

[xi] Tanya 30

[xii] There is an element of self-satisfaction here. See http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/sifrut/agadot/barkai-2.htm

[xiii] I was unable to find the source for this commentary at this time.

[xiv] Talmud, Taanit 20a &b

Shiktzeh! Imposing One's Beliefs & Morals – Joseph & Beit Shemesh

By Seth Frantzman, licensed for
non-commercial reuse under terms as per
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

A shocking example of seeking to impose religious standards on others was reported recently in Beit Shemesh, Israel. A seven year old girl who is afraid to go to school because of harassment by zealots has really brought this question home. (See video) With the qualification that media reports always only show part of the story, I think it is reasonable to assume there is a serious problem. Of course the behaviour we are seeing is absolutely wrong. 

My heart is with the demonstrators who asserted on Tuesday night that anyone who spits on a seven year old girl, spits on the beauty of Judaism and destroys its values[1]. They are right. This behaviour is not justified by the Torah “whose ways are pleasantness and all its paths are peace[2]”.  It would be wrong to blame whole communities for this and turn this into an anti-Haredi issue. Still, I think that before we can wash our hands of this, we need to consider the context out of which this outrage has come, as part of a strategy to prevent it in the future.    

This post explores whether the behaviour we are seeing is to be understood as an extreme manifestation of a broader rejection of pluralism. I think that because some traditional sources reflect anti-pluralist perspectives, work must be undertaken to establish and promote a compelling religious argument within a Torah perspective for greater tolerance of more practices[3] and beliefs that differ to ones own. Exhibit A. is the case of Joseph (Jacob’s son) and the degree to which his own beliefs influences his rule of a society who did not share his beliefs.

Ruling Egypt from a Jewish perspective – Mass Circumcision?

One surprising commentary about Joseph’s rule of Egypt is the suggestions that Joseph forced the Egyptians to circumcise themselves as a condition for being allowed to purchase food[4]. This baffling idea is offered as an explanation[5] for the odd wording with which Pharaoh responds to his people who cry out to him for food, “go to Joseph, whatever he tells you, you shall do[6]”. A simpler interpretation of this verse is that Pharaoh advised them to pay whatever price Joseph demands[7]. The idea that Joseph would impose his own religious practice on the people of Egypt is problematic on many levels[8]. While one commentator limits this idea to tribes related to Abraham that had previously undertaken the practice of circumcision[9], this is a bit of a stretch, with the simple meaning being that Joseph imposed this on Egypt as a whole. Why?

An Anti-Promiscuity Measure

One relatively recent view with echoes in the controversy in Beit Shemesh is that Joseph was concerned about the Egyptians who were steeped in promiscuity, so he introduced circumcision as a counter measure presumably to decrease desire[10].

Ironically, our sages never thought of as circumcision as a guarantee against sexual sin. This is the reason for the Yichud laws, which prohibit a Jewish man from being alone with a strange woman[11] with the door locked. In some there is significant segregation of the sexes in many aspects of life among the ultra-orthodox. While these varied measures have served the communities well and helped minimize if not prevent adultery and promiscuity, it’s imposition on others is wrong. Yet, this commentary can be taken to suggest otherwise. It also positions the other as promiscuous while viewing “us” as chaste. I am afraid there is too much in our tradition that the Beit Shemesh zealots can take further than reasonable people have in the past. 

Other views about Joseph’s “Virtue Policy”

One manuscript that softens this idea is that Joseph inspired Egyptians to want to circumcise themselves[12]. Another view is that as it was a time of hunger, it was important for the people to exercise restraint in terms of their eating and it was deemed useful to more generally initiate ‘character repair’ with the father of the fathers of this process being circumcision[13]. This links with the idea that a famine increases hunger so that people would eat three times as much[14] (if and when they can). The implications of these interpretations are still conducive to “us good and them not as good” thinking.

God doesn’t feed Heathens?

Another version of the circumcision story includes Joseph telling the Egyptians my God does not feed the uncircumcised, go and circumcise yourselves and I will give you[15]. The idea that God does not feed the uncircumcised, contradicts our belief that God feed all his creatures.

A “Muslim/Sufi story

Judaism has compelling ideas about the value of all people, yet for me in spite of almost 40 years of immersion in the world of Torah, what comes to mind is a Muslim story. “The Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) would not eat unless there was some guest at his table. Once,  Abraham went out in search of a guest and he found one very old man. He invited the old man to dine with him and the man agreed. When Abraham asked him to pray before eating the man refused, Abraham was angry and refused to feed him. When he did so he heard a voice from above: “Abraham, how old is that man? I tolerated him, (the old man) fed and sustained him for seventy years despite his disbelief and you could not tolerate him for seven minutes?! Abraham repented and took the old man home for dining[16].” I wish I had a ready Jewish response of equal strength, I believe we need to find one and ensure it is well known.

Egyptian law and custom rather vs. own faith? – The Property of the Priests 

We have another case, this time in the Torah itself. We are told that Joseph was entrusted with sweeping powers over Egypt; no man will raise arm or leg without your permission[17].  Despite these powers, when Joseph effectively nationalises all land in Egypt in exchange for food and seeds, he excludes the priests. Because it is a fixed settlement for the priests from Pharaoh and they ate their fixed portion that Pharaoh gave them, therefore they did not sell their fields… Joseph set this as law… only the land of the priests did not become the possession of the Pharaoh[18]. This suggests that Joseph’s set aside his personal religious views, because he was acting not as a private individual but on behalf of the Egyptian state and Pharaoh.

Alternative Explanations

Traditional commentaries offer other explanations, eg. Joseph returned a favour to the priests for speaking out in his favour when he was accused of attempted rape by the wife of Potiphar[19]. His master had sought to have him executed but because of the priests he was saved from execution[20]. A minority view goes so far as to suggest that we are not talking about priests at all but rather officials of war and the royal chariots[21], this is based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word כהנים (Cohanim is plural of Cohen, which can either mean priest or official). It seems that the idea of Joseph paying respect to the priests of idol worship is too offensive and implausible.

The light of Chanukah

The demonstration in Beit Shemesh happened on the last night of Chanukah, and was said to be bringing the light on the festival to the city[22]. Chanukah could be about affirming a live and let live approach. We could celebrate the triumph of religious freedom and the victory of the weak minority against those who sought to impose their way of life on them. Yet, for many it is not so much about the few resisting the many but more about the “the defiled being (given to defeat in) the hand of the pure[23]”.  

Limits of tolerance

It is necessary for communities to establish standards. I think it is right and proper for communities to decide how to deal with various challenges such as lust and assert their views. If religious Jewish men and women want to sit separately on a bus and cover up almost all their skin, that is their right. If people object to the imposition of standards on others, they have a right to make and enforce laws that prevent people being harassed for how they dress in public spaces or where they choose to sit on a bus. We need a robust tolerance that respects ourselves as well as the other.  

A choice between risks – shiktze vs. relativism  

Orthodox Judaism is committed to the idea that it has the absolute Truth. This is not going to be negotiated. In view of this, I can think of two significant options, one is to rely on teachings like “greet all people with a friendly face[24]” to counter the implications in sources such as those quoted above. The risk is the doubly offensive use of words like “Shiktzeh”. This is a yiddish version of a hebrew word being something disgusting that some people have used to refer to a non-Jewish woman. Thankfully, many orthodox Jews do not use this word. In situations like Beit Shemesh it has been unforgivably used interchangeably with words like promiscuous or slut.

The other option is to embrace an ethic that requires us to think about the other and their beliefs and practices as equal at least in the sense that we must treat their choices as we would like them to treat ours. A strong secular education that values the wisdom of all nations would be essential for the second option to succeed. This option carries the risk of slipping into relativism or at least weakening the degree to which Judaism is seen as a superior path. I am in favour of the second option.

... in today's multicultural world, the truly reliable path to coexistence, to peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation, must start from what is at the root of all cultures and what lies infinitely deeper in human hearts and minds than political opinion...It must be rooted in self-transcendence. Transcendence as a hand that reaches out to those close to us, to foreigners, to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the universe; transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be in harmony even with what we ourselves are not...[25]"
-Vaclav Havel

---

[1] Tzviki Levin, http://www.facebook.com/groups/LightBetShemesh/permalink/271476442910094/

[2] Proverbs 3:17

[3] This tolerance does not need to be absolute. People of all persuasions find certain behaviours intolerable, eg. incest, theft, or indeed the behaviour of the zealots in Beit Shemesh. I would argue that the tolerance threshold needs to be higher and more open minded, with fewer behaviours being deemed intolerably offensive

[4] Midrash Beresheet Rabba, As mentioned elsewhere, the Midrash is not about what literally happened at the time but rather about teaching us something

[5] Rashi, Rabbenu Bchai

[6] Genesis 41:55, This implausible scenario is explained by Midrash Tanchuma by the sheer terror felt by the Pharaoh. Pharaoh asks the people why they did not store grain them selves? When they reply that they had stored grain but it rotted, Pharaoh is afraid that it is Joseph’s powers that caused the rot and that if the people disobey him, Joseph might decree that they should all die

[7] Chizkuni

[8] There is the ethical obligation of Joseph toward Pharaoh and the Egyptian people to carry out his duties in accordance with the purpose for which he was given his role, eg. to ensure that the Egyptians had what to eat. It is an obvious abuse of that trust and the office to use it for advancing some other agenda, regardless of how holy the thinks it is. There is also the concept in Judaism of 7 universal commandments that are applicable to all people which does not include circumcision.  

[9] Torah Shlaima, p. 1563 based on the view of the Rosh that the sons of Ishmael and Keturah were obligated to circumcise themselves

[10] Klei Yakar, in addition Klei Yakar explains that there was a direct causal link between Joseph’s stored wheat being persevered and the fact that he was circumcised.

[11] eg. A woman he is not married to, nor a direct relation such as sister, daughter, mother

[12] Torah Shlaima p. 1563

[13] Yefat Torah, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1563

[14] Lekach Tov

[15] Midrash Tanchuma Miketz 6

[16] I heard this story from a religious Muslim, also http://www.bodhicitta.net/Compassion%20in%20Islam%202.htm

[17] Genesis 41:44

[18] Genesis 47:22 & 26 A careful reading of the verses could yield the explanation for Joseph not buying the priests land, being because the priests did not need to because they got food directly from Pharaoh, as mentioned in Bchor Shor. Yet, this royal stipend was presumably also administered by Joseph and he would have had the power to cancel it, this view is implied in the question of Sechel Tov, “Why did Joseph agree to give wheat to the priests?” and the interpretation of Yonatan Ben Uziel in the following paragraph

[19] Sechel Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1716

[20] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, They suggested Joseph’s garment be examined to see how it was torn when he got away from her. If it is torn from the front then her story was correct but if it was torn at the back then Joseph was obviously running away from her and she was chasing him. The tear was found at the back of the garment (Tur)

[21] This is the view found in a Manuscript of Moshav Zkainim cited in Torah Shlaima and Chizkuni, the view that we are discussing priests is found in Rashi, Sechel Tov, Midrash Hagadol, Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, Bchor Shor and Radak  

[22] Tzviki Levin, as above

[23] Al Hanisim prayer recited during Chanukah

[24] Avot 1:15

[25] http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/historical/biography/vaclav_havel_civic_forum.html

Un-Calculated. Relating to God & Men, a Synagogue Fire & “Who by Fire?”

On the first night of Rosh Hashanah a Synagogue near my house burned. No, it is not the Synagogue I pray at, it is the one where I don’t usually pray. While thankfully no people were harmed, there was very significant damage to the building and holy books of the Masada Synagogue. Yet, there was a silver lining. Our Chabad Synagogue, which was originally a breakaway from Masada over 20 years ago, provided the Masada community with a place to pray in our spacious hall. We also prayed together on Friday night just after 6:30 pm, the clock stopped at 6:32. It was destined to be.

Rosh Hashanah is a time for thinking about the relationship between us and God. This includes reflection on how we interact with other people, individually and in groups or communities. Others themes relate to accepting God’s sovereignty while He judges us. All of this requires an element of surrender.  Perhaps trying to figure it all out is the opposite of surrender.  

I alluded to the fact that Masada is the Synagogue where I don’t (usually) pray. This is partly due to minor variations in the prayers themselves. It is more about the fact that differences about religious issues have come between the communities alongside competition for patronage.

Masada Rabbi Gad Krebs correctly identified the challenge being that of accommodating diversity while still being united.  I always wondered about how the “Balkanisation” of Judaism into distinct communities could ever be justified. There is a prohibition against becoming separate groups based on the words  לא תתגדדוLo Tisgodedu[i] which in the simple meaning is about not cutting oneself in mourning but it is also interpreted as “do not become (many) groups, groups”[ii]. The exact definition of this prohibition might be narrow[iii] but its moral message is that rather than form groups we should be in unity[iv].

There have been well thought out joint projects and celebrations over the years but there remained a strong sense of two separate communities, not merely two parallel facilities with some differences. It took a fire to force the communities into an ad hoc coming together. To their credit, Rabbi Schapiro of Chabad House and Rabbi Krebs agreed to go further and pray together and share a meal. It was an historic and very moving coming together. Hopefully the value of Togetherness will continue to be felt in the relationship between the communities.

For me, the clock stopping is symbolic of the need for less calculation and figuring it out and just going for it.

The idea of letting go is also useful in resetting the relationship with God. This is useful on the day of judgment which on the one hand is conducted with mercy and forgiveness[v], but also with frightful punishments.

Leonard Cohen captures the mood in his contemporary take on the Unesaneh Tokef prayer in his song “Who By Fire”.

And who by fire, who by water,

who in the sunshine, who in the night time,

who by high ordeal, who by common trial,

who in your merry month of may,

who by very slow decay,

and who shall I say is calling?

And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate…

And who by brave assent, who by accident,

who in solitude, who in this mirror,

who by his lady's command, who by his own hand,

who in mortal chains, who in power,

and who shall I say is calling?

The liturgy also refers to a harsh interpretation of an exchange between Abraham and God about the promise that Abraham’s descendants would inherit the land of Canaan.

In the text, Abraham asksבַּמָּה אֵדַע  “How will I know” that I will inherit it[vi]?

God responds that Abraham should carry out a covenant ceremony with animals and then states יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע “you will know” that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years[vii].

Abraham wanted certainty. He wanted to “know”, demonstrating an element of doubt[viii]. (There are other views that reject that Abraham’s faith was less than perfect[ix]) As a punishment God gives him certainty, telling him the painful news[x] about the slavery in Egypt[xi]. God tells him, “Abraham, the whole world stands by my word and you don’t believe in my words, (instead) you say “how will I know?”, by your life!  You will know that your seed will be strangers…[xii]”

It is impossible to understand divine judgment, of course. Our tradition provides some guidance about elements of this unfathomable, awesome and frightful process that matches a world in which both grace and catastrophe are realities. If we are to reconcile with God and men, we will need to let go of trying to figure everything out.    

---

[i] Deuteronomy 14:1

[ii] Talmud Yevamot 14a

[iii] There is discussion that essentially concludes that the problem would only apply in a legal sense if there were sustained disagreement on the same religious court but there could be two religious courts in the same city with different views (See Rosh and Ran)

[iv] Haemek Davar

[v] The Machzor liturgy

[vi] Genesis 15:8

[vii] Genesis 15:13

[viii] Midrash Hagadol 9,
הרהר בליבו ואמר: "כיצד ארשנה?!" ולא האמין לדבריו של הקב”ה אלא אמר: "במה אדע כי ארשנה", מלמד שקרא תיגר.

[ix] Breshit Rabba 44. Ramban and others. One creative interpretation is that Abraham was concerned about the practicality of living among the people he will one day need to conquer and that he may feel compelled to make a pact with them. Exile was a way to solve this problem (Tur). Another view has Abraham simply wanting to know when this would happen? Which generation? how much of it? (Bchor Shor)

[x] Klei Yakar

[xi] Talmud Nedarim 32

[xii] Pirkey Drabi Eliezer 48 cited in http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/790.html