Some Equivalence between Muslim and Jewish ruled societies? Torah prohibition of Jewish presence in Egypt

I was delighted to find a passage, in a Jewish religious text, that shows appreciation for Muslims and Islam. A respected commentator on the Torah suggests, that in one matter of Jewish law, a society ruled by a Muslim king would have equal status to one ruled by a Jewish king.

This teaching was a wonderful find for me, because I live between two worlds. One is the exclusivist Orthodox Jewish one; the other is one that embraces, and even celebrates, a wide range of beliefs and cultural ways. So when these two meet, it gives me great pleasure.

I had better preempt two kinds of fierce critiques, based on inferences that either Jewish and Islamic faiths are equally true or an endorsement of every aspect of Islam. This text should not be read as either relinquishing exclusive Truth claims for the Jewish faith or wholesale endorsement of Islam, neither of which it is addressing at all; it has a particular context.

However, the teaching does reflect a recognition of the fact that some of the virtues Jews strive for due to the influences of Judaism are also practiced by Muslims due to influences of Islam. Of course this is also the case with people with other sources of guidance, both religious and otherwise. 

With the disclaimers out of the way, let me get into this teaching. There is a contradiction between the fact that Jewish communities and some of our greatest scholars, most notably Maimonides, lived in Egypt, yet the Torah forbids Jews to live there (1).

The context of the prohibition is a series of laws to prevent kings from becoming corrupt, with the hope that the king’s “heart should not be haughty over his brothers” (2). These laws limit the amount of wealth and horses a king can accumulate. It then adds the following statement: "so that he [the king] will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses.(3)".

I was intrigued to read one authority declare that this commandment only applied for a limited time so that the Jews would not learn immoral behavior from the Egyptians, but did not apply for future generations (4). The line of argument that the prohibition has expired is extended in the writings of an early nineteenth century scholar, Rabbi Meir Benyamin Menachem Danon, who was the chief rabbi of Sarajevo in Muslim, Bosnia (5).

Danon argues that the conquest of Egypt by Muslims is a game changer. “When the king of the Ishmaelites [a reference to Arabs as well as Muslims] conquered the land of Egypt and all its inhabitants he turned them toward their religion [of Islam] and manners/cultural norms. With the passage of time, the Egyptians ...became like the Ishamaelites ...” (6). I wonder how Coptic Chrisitans would feel about this teaching, but let’s take Danon in his Bosnian Context. 

Danon’s basis for his argument is in the writing of Maimonides who states that: "it seems to me, that if the land of Egypt were to be conquered by a Jewish king under the guidance of a Beth Din, [a Torah court], the prohibition would no longer apply” (7). Danon essentially argued that it doesn't matter what kind of monotheistic society Egypt would be. He wrote that Maimonides’ reference to a Beth Din is merely descriptive of the typical scenario of a Jewish king going to war, rather than a condition for the law.

One might dismiss Danon’s argument based on the fact that Maimonides ruled that living in Egypt was still forbidden and only tentatively suggests it might be permitted under a Jewish king. If Danon’s view is in accordance with Maimonides’ own view why does Maimonides not state this explicitly? In fact, Maimonides use of the expression “it seems to me” is questioned by two scholars (8) who wonder why he does not simply present his view as law.

I suggest that this tentativeness might offer a hint to Maimonides’ real opinion on the matter. The fact that he was living in Egypt meant that he was personally implicated by this particular law, if he was in breach of it. In fact, it has been claimed that Maimonides would sign his letters, "Moshe ben Maimon, who transgresses three prohibitions each day" on account of his residence in Egypt (9). He could hardly feel comfortable justifying himself, in a novel way. We are taught that “one should not be defensive, in accordance with the proverb that one cannot recognise one’s own faults”, instead one should seek to judge oneself truthfully (10). This ethical principle might explain both Maimonides reticence in justifying living in Egypt under Muslim rule and the tentative language he uses to introduce the monotheistic conquest exception.

Danon’s teaching illustrates a manner of respect between believers that is not merely relativist. Rather, it acknowledges the reality that in some significant ways the religious influences of other faiths on their adherents can lead them to similar outcomes to those achieved through the influence of one’s own faith. There is no need to agree about the big questions of how to get to heaven or please the creator, but for the sake of truth let us recognise the truth about our neighbours, whose beliefs differ from our own, including the non-religious. Surely, this is in keeping with the idea that the Torah’s ways are ways of peace (11).

  

Notes 

1)            Deuteronomy 17:16

2)            Deuteronomy 17:20

3)            Deuteronomy 17:16

4)            Bachaya, on Deuteronomy 17:16, Ritva to Yoma 38 also takes the law to be non-applicable to his time but his reason is that the prohibition only applies to returning to Egypt from Israel, but moving there from other diaspora lands is permitted. This view seemed to contradict both the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5:1 and Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 51b which state that the massive Jewish community of Alexandria was destroyed because they disobeyed the commandment against settling in Egypt. Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:8 rules that living permanently in Egypt is forbidden.

5)            http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4891-danon-meir-benjamin-menahem chief rabbi of Sarajevo in Bosnia, author of "Be'er ba-Sadeh".

6)            Be'er ba-Sadeh, on this verse,  published in Jerusalem in 1846

7)            Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:8

8)            Torah Temima, Levin, A. in Hadrash VeHaiyun, Shoftim, Maamar 125, p. 150 ff.

9)            Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1280-1366), in his encyclopedic work Kaftor v'Ferah, (ch. 5), cited in  Loewenberg, M. May a Jew live in Egypt?,   http://www.jewishmag.com/173mag/jew_live_in_egypt/jew_live_in_egypt.htm

10)          Chida in Nachal K’domim, in Torat Hachida, shoftim, p. 129

11)          Proverbs 3:17

Interfaith Understanding through highlighting both commonality and difference, and inclusive and confronting texts and interpretations

14.05.2019. Yesterday, a group of visiting students from the Jewish, Emanuel School, sat at the front right hand side of a large room. A group of students from the host school, Granville Boys High, of mixed backgrounds including Muslim, Hindu and other unknown beliefs filed in. They sat down at the back left side of the room, leaving a big gap between them and the visitors. The day unfolded and something magical happened. As one student reflected at the end of the day “this morning we were two distinct groups, by the afternoon there was one big group”.

The desire to be one is strong. But we must take care that in trying to become one, we don’t simply become “color blind”, which means that we minimize difference. If we do, we don’t really embrace others as they are, we just pretend that they are exactly like ourselves⁽¹⁾.

The combination of acknowledging commonality while also recognizing difference was evident tonight at an Iftar dinner I attended. As the sun was setting many of the Muslims gathered to pray. It was also prayer time for me so I rose to pray alongside the Muslim worshipers. Unlike Muslim prayer, Jewish prayer involves minimal bowing. As I stood upright alongside the synchronized rows of men and women bowing in unison, the voice of a very young child called out loudly “why is that man not bowing?” The Muslim Sheikh and I reflected afterwards about how the two faiths worship the one God, but do it in different ways and that this is to be respected and celebrated. 

16.05.2019 I am sitting on a plane, traveling home to Sydney from Melbourne after speaking on a panel at my third Iftar dinner, at Deakin University. Our topic was how people of different backgrounds can get along better and the role that religion plays in this.

I suggested that religious leaders need to take responsibility for how we teach sacred texts. There are two ways we can do this. Either we directly confront “inconvenient texts” and grapple with how they are interpreted or we focus more on texts that have a positive inclusive message. My approach has been mainly the former, while Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’ approach is the latter.

Before I switched my phone to flight mode I downloaded Sacks’ essay on minority rights⁽²⁾. His starting point is the following verse. “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them [as well as any⁽³⁾] (non-citizen) resident and an alien, so they can continue to live among you”⁽⁴⁾. Sacks explains that: “There is, in other words, an obligation to support and sustain a resident alien and that not only does he or she have the right to live in the Holy Land, but they have the right to share in its welfare provisions.” The requirement for equal treatment is also recorded as law⁽⁵⁾.

I am thrown by Sacks’ focus on this inclusive verse. I wrote out a list of all the challenging verses in the same reading, but I delete the list. I try to flow with his argument. He cited the example of an affair between the wife of alien soldier in King David’s army and the King.

“King David has fallen in love and had an adulterous relationship with Batsheva, wife of a ger toshav, Uriah the Hittite. She becomes pregnant. Uriah meanwhile has been away from home as a soldier in Israel’s army. David, afraid that Uriah will come home, see that his wife is pregnant, realise that she has committed adultery, and come to discover that the king is the guilty party, has Uriah brought home. His pretext is that he wants to know how the battle is going. He then tells Uriah to go home and sleep with his wife before returning, so that he will later assume that he himself is the father of the child”. ⁽⁶⁾

David’s plan failed. Uriah chose not to go home out of solidarity with the Israelites. Uriah’s words are recorded in the scripture. Uriah said to David, “The Ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my commander Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open country. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!” 

Sacks makes the point that “the fact that Tanakh [the Bible] can tell such a story in which a resident alien is the moral hero, and David, Israel’s greatest king, the wrongdoer or villain, tells us much about the morality of Judaism.”

On reflection, I think there is a need for voices like Sacks to highlight the positive. There is also a need to confront the texts that can be taken to legitimise bigotry, which I will continue to do. While in Melbourne I held some discussions with the Jewish Christian Muslim Association about doing exactly that. It irritates me to no end when I hear non-Muslims focus on apparently difficult Islamic texts. I think it is more useful for people to grapple with their own texts and be honest about what is in them. However it is also important to highlight inclusive texts. It is not an either/or choice. It is a case of “and”. Challenging and inclusive text are worth exploring, just as it is valuable to focus on both similarities and differences⁽⁷⁾.

Notes

Rev. Ian Smith in conversation on 16.05.2019.

Sacks, J. (2017) http://rabbisacks.org/minority-rights-behar-bechukotai-5777/

Rashi

Leviticus 25:35, there are some conditions to this law. See Sacks.

Maimonides, in Yad Hachazaka Hilkhot Melachim 10:12, cited by Sacks. “One should act towards resident aliens with the same respect and loving kindness as one would to a fellow Jew”

2 Samuel 11:6-11 in Sacks

Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise, M. (2005). Talk Does Not Cook Rice: Beyond anti-racism rhetoric to strategies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20-30.

“Goyim” A Sukkot Reflection: Attitudes to People Who Are Not Jewish (Vzot Habracha)

“Goyim”

A Sukkot Reflection:

Proper Jewish Attitudes to People Who Are Not Jewish

Tuesday, Chol Hamoed Succot. A white bearded Rabbi walking with his student, told me that I was saved. He saw me stop on Kingston Avenue, Brooklyn, to consider giving a bill to a woman begging. He was relieved to hear that I had not given her money because he told me that she is a Gypsy, she is not Jewish. I was feeling bad that the Australian currency in my wallet was of no use to her so I told her I was sorry. Now, I was being told it was good I didn’t give her anything. I didn’t argue with the Rabbi that our law requires us to sustain the poor of the nations along those of Jews (1). Sadly, I did not think the argument would go anywhere. I grew up here and I know that the old Rabbi was reflecting an insular culture that is considered normal here.  

Sunday, Chol Hamoed Succot. I am sitting on an aeroplane during the Jewish Festival of Sukkot, with my seven year old son. For all I know, he and I might be the only Jewish people on this fight. It doesn't matter at all. Except for the fact that most of the passengers got a hot meal, while we got an apology for our absent Kosher meal. Nothing unusual about this, except that this is very different to how I would have experienced such a flight when I was a seven year old. I would have been acutely aware that I was surrounded by “Goyim”, a noun used in certain insular Jewish communities (such as my own) to refer to people who are not Jewish.

Jewish holy days are generally focused on Jewish stories and history. In the case of Passover, which commemorates the Jewish exodus from Egypt, the Torah explicitly forbids “any foreigner” from partaking of the Paschal lamb (2). An exception to this is the Sukkot festival that Jews are celebrating this week. The tradition for this festival not only permits involvement by non Jewish people, it adamantly insists on it (3). In addition,  concern for their welfare was a focus of the festival sacrifice schedule.

“The total number of oxen offered as sacrifices during the festival was 70. These seventy oxen correspond to the original seventy nations of the world [representing all of humanity]...Israel brought these sacrifices... in prayer for their well-being” (4).

In the Torah reading relevant to the week of Sukkot we read a poetic phrase: “Also, You cherish nations; all his holy ones are in Your hand” (5). One authoritative commentator, Rabbi Ovadia Seforno, (1475-1550) explains the verse to mean that “even though you [God], cherish all nations and with [this love] you have made known that the entire human species is a treasure for You. For our sages have stated “humans are beloved as they have been created in the image [of God]”, (6) however in addition to the love God has for all people, Moses asserts a special relationship between God and the Jews who follow the Torah (7).

On the other hand, it is significant that nine other prominent commentators choose to stretch the meaning of the “nations”, who are beloved, as referring to the twelve Jewish tribes (8), or to converts to Judaism from other nations (9), rather than simply referring to the non-Jewish nations. One explanation of the reluctance to acknowledge the love G-d feels toward all people in these interpretations, is based on the context of this verse, which is focused on the Jews receiving the Torah from God at Mount Sinai. In addition the first word of the verse, “also”, indicates that this verse is a continuation of the topic in the previous verse (10).

The contrast between the one commentator, known as Seforno, who reads our verse as affirming the love God has for all of humanity, and the views of the other nine commentators, raises two questions. A. How did Seforno come to dissent from the other scholars? And B. Why would we take any notice of the lone voice rather than follow the majority?

In reflection on this question, I think of the transformational impact positive contact has had on my own way of relating to people who are not Jewish, changing it from one of distance to to one of deep friendship and appreciation. I suggest that perhaps the Seforno also had a unique perspective on his non-Jewish neighbours, based on his regular positive experiences of dialogue with them. We know that he had meaningful discussions with learned non-Jewish people. This involved him teaching Judaism or Jewish knowledge to certain non Jewish scholars, as a means of earning his livelihood. There is a record of Johann Reuchlin paying Rabbi Seforno the sum of one Ducat per lesson. (11).

Seforno was not unique in interacting with people outside his faith, but it can be argued that the quality of the contact experienced by many of his colleagues were often either adversarial or transactional rather personal. Two examples are that of Ramban/Nachmanides, who was forced to participate in a staged debate, and later exiled. Another example is the case of Abarbanel, who developed a very dim view of the monarchy (12), while serving in the royal courts of 15th century Spain, in what can only be assumed to be treacherous and uninspiring circumstances.

This brings us to the question about who is right in interpreting the verse above, the one scholar or the nine? One could argue that the Seforno cited a proof text so that makes him right. However, the truth is that this is the wrong question when studying these kinds of texts. In contrast to texts dealing with the law- Halacha, where one opinion is generally deemed valid, this discussion comes under the category of Aggadah, inspirational stories and teachings in which everyone is right, all have meaning. In fact, the Torah is said to have seventy faces (13).

This dual nature of the Torah is hinted at in the words Esh-Dat (14) which can be translated as fiery law. This phrase is cryptically linked to a teaching that the Torah was black fire written on white fire before it was given to the Jews (15). These two colors of fire symbolize the two defining characteristics of the Torah: Kindness and Truth.The color white represents light and pleasantness which is an essential element of the Torah. Black represents clarity and truth (16). Together, black and white, kindness and truth constitute the Torah.

This post is not an argument against the importance of truth, nor do I seek to deny that there are distinctions between adherents of a faith and those who think and live differently to them. My son and I had cucumbers and potato chips for lunch on our flight, and I had instant rice noodles (not as bad as it sounds, by the way). This is an argument to live the kindness of the Torah in our thoughts, speech and action toward God's beloved children who happen not to be Jewish.

Notes:

1. Talmud, Gittin 61a, Rambam Laws of gifts to the poor, 7:7
2. Exodus 12:43
3. Zechariah 14.
4. Bamidbar Rabba 1, explained by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ulman, https://ohr.edu/2349 accessed 10.02.2017.
5. Deutronomy 33:3.
6. Pirkey Avot, 3:14?.
7. Seforno on Deutronomy 33:3 the text of his interpretation is:

אף חובב עמים. ואע''פ שאתה חובב עמים ובזה הודעת שכל המין האנושי סגולה אצלך. כאמרם ז''ל (אבות) חביב אדם שנברא בצלם. מ''מ כל קדושיו בידך. הנה אמרת שכל קדושיו של קודש של אש דת הם בידך כצרור הכסף:

8. Unkelus, Rashi’s first interpretation, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Abarbanel, R. Bchaya (second explanation) on Deutronomy 33:3.
9. Baal Haturim and Rashbam, on Deutronomy 33:3, a similar approach is taken by Bchor Shor that the divine cherishing that relates to the rest of the nations is to be applied only to those of them that are converts.    
10. Sifsei Chachomim supra-commentary on Rashi Deutronomy 33:3.
11. See introduction to Seforno, Mosad Harav Kook edition.
12. Abarbanel commentary to the Torah, exact citation needed.
13. Bamidbar Rabbah 13:15
14. Deutronomy 33:2
15. Cited in Rashi on Deutronomy 33:2
16. Gur Aryeh on Deutronomy 33:2

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

A God who hides: Vayelech and Yom Kippur

“Don’t hide from me” pleads Hasidic singer Avraham Fried. The idea of God hiding has been used in response to the question “Where was God during the Holocaust?” and to explain the persecution of “God’s treasured people”. I am curious about how a people with a terrible history of suffering interprets the symbolism of a God with a “hidden face”.

In our Torah reading this week (Vayelech), we encounter the idea of God hiding as punishment for a disloyal people. “My fury will rage against them on that day, and I will abandon them and hide My face from them, and they will be consumed, and many evils and troubles will befall them, and they will say on that day, 'Is it not because our God is no longer among us, that these evils have befallen us? And I will hide, [yes] I will hide My face on that day, because of all the evil they have committed, when they turned to other gods”.1

One Jewish response to “God hiding” that resonates for me is deep sadness. “Rabbi Johanan, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them. A slave whose Master brings many evils and troubles upon him, is there any remedy for him?!”2  Some have argued that God didn’t cause the Holocaust, or the terrible violence of our own time, that man instead is to blame. I agree that humans must certainly be held to account, but letting God off the hook in this way does not work for me. My orientation to God is as the source of sustenance and protection. God must have been present at Auschwitz and could thus arguably appear to be complicit in the evil deeds of the Nazis. The response to suffering I find most useful is in the statement that “it is not in our hands to grasp [the reasons for] the tranquillity of the wicked nor the ordeals of the righteous”.3

One approach to the verse about the slave seems to be focused on making sense of the words, but also sheds some light on the reality they describe. “What is the meaning of ‘evils and troubles’? — Rab said: Evils which become antagonists to each other, as for instance the [bites of] a wasp and a scorpion”. This is a classic catch 22: the treatment of one kind of bite is to wash it with cold water and that bite is made worse by hot water, while the reverse is true with the other.4 A variation of this bind is seen when “Jews in exile would be mistreated by a non-Jewish person. If the Jew complained it increased the hatred of the perpetrator and would be spread to others, but if he is silent then the perpetrator will become accustomed to doing this in this way”.5  Australian Muslims, like American Blacks, sometimes find themselves in a similar bind. If they complain they are the “Angry Muslim”, like the “Angry Black Man”; if they are silent the problems persist.

The attraction of the idea of God hiding, in some interpretations, is that one can continue to believe in benign divine providence and engagement with the Jews despite intensely cruel oppression. One such approach, implausible to me, is that God’s hiding his face is “in a way of affection” like a father of a misbehaving child who instructs the child’s teacher to beat him but cannot bear to look himself, and turns away, because of his feeling for the child.6  This anthropomorphism comforts persecuted believers by telling them that although they may feel abandoned by God, God still cares. In fact He cares so much that it is as if he is looking away because he cannot bear to witness their pain. 

One of the themes of Christian antisemitism was the idea that God had rejected the Jews. Although God hiding his face from the Jews could be understood as supporting that idea, commentators argue that the opposite is true: “it is not as they [the Jews] think, that I [God] am not among them [which explains their suffering] but indeed in every place that they will be, my presence will be found there but I will hide my face from helping them”.7  Other commentators go as far as condemning the Jews for their belief that God had abandoned them, declaring that this lack of faith in God’s continuing providence is the very sin that leads to God redoubling his determination to hide from them.8

Sitting in the comfort of 21^st Century Australia it is hard to imagine the hell experienced by our people in other times and places, or that being endured by members of many other nations and faiths today.  As I prepare for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, for me also a day for reconciliation with God, I wonder about this punitive cruel God. One way of explaining the Kol Nidrei prayer, which calls for the absolving of vows, is that God Himself is asking to be absolved from the system of rewards, punishments and “hiding” that he promised in the Torah.  Yes, there needs to be accountability by the Jews for compliance with God's laws but punishment is not the only option available to God for holding us to account. The approach of restorative justice uses shame and awareness of the harm itself as more potent alternatives to punishment.9

Perhaps God hides because of an estrangement between humans and God, and our failure to live up to the ideals and principles that God calls us to live by. I am up for this kind of reconciliation.

1.       Deuteronomy  31:17-18

2.       Talmud Chagiga 5a

3.       Pirkey Avot, (Ethics of the fathers)  4:11

4.       Rashi

5.       Bchor Shor,  Meam Loez, p. 1247, Vagshal edition

6.       Bchor Shor, Chizkuni, Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Hatosafot,

7.       Seforno

8.       R.A Hacohen, cited in Meam Loez, p. 1272, Vagshal editiontheme is discussed in Meam Loez, p. 1248, Vagshal edition

9.       This theme is discussed in Meam Loez, p. 1248, Vagshal edition