Dis/Connect Between Lands and “their” peoples - Bechukotai

Recently, I joined a group of Australian born Muslim high school boys in watching a moving film called Before 1770, produced by Shaykh Wesam Charkawi. The film shows deep connections between Muslims and the land of Australia. We learned that “for hundreds of years, Aboriginal Yolngu and Muslim Macassans interacted. They married, traded, exchanged, [and] learnt from one another... The Aboriginal Yolngu have, to this day, preserved words, which were taught during the stay of the Macassans, [including the words] Allah and Muhammad” (1).

This outstanding film helps address the alienation that some young people feel from the place where they live. One of the issues that Muslims tell me is important to them is the degree to which young Muslims in Australia feel or don’t feel a sense of belonging in this country. There is a narrative out there that equates being Australian to being white, being of Christian and Anglo heritage and adopting a set of secular, cultural norms relating to modesty and drinking for example. If a young person accepts that narrative then the choice to identify with Australia can also seem like a betrayal of his or her religious identity. This film appears to separate the choices young people need to make between: connecting with the place of Australia and its long history on the one hand; and identifying with contemporary Australian society on the other.    

Let us put aside the broader question of how people with diverse beliefs and cultures relate to each other in the present and continue with the idea of feeling connected to a place and its history. Are places significant or merely a meaningless platform on which the real drama consisting exclusively of people plays out?  

In my tradition the relationship between a people and a land comes up in the reading this week. The Jewish people had an obligation to allow the land to rest for one of every seven years. In this week’s reading the Torah describes the consequences for the Jews of their failure to meet this responsibility, among other sins. “I will scatter you among the nations...Then, the land will be appeased regarding its sabbaticals. During all the days that it remains desolate while you are in the land of your enemies, the Land will rest and thus appease its sabbaticals (2).

The imagery of this verse is of a land that is resentful toward “its people”. The land is appeased only when the debt to it/her has been paid (3). It fits with a contemporary perspective about an exhausted, polluted planet earth-mother whose patience with her wayward human children is running out and her wrath is soon to be unleashed. This idea resonates for me when I walk in nature near my home, in the shade of nature’s abundant trees and the combination of its quiet and birdsong. The earth deserves care and respect rather than being exploited carelessly.    

It was disappointing to me to read the most popular Torah commentator, Rashi’s, interpretation of the verse above as referring to appeasing God rather than the earth (4). While that might make sense from a literal perspective it removes the opportunity to engage our imagination with the image of an aggrieved living land. However, I was pleased to find a supra-commentary that insisted that Rashi actually did embrace the idea of the land being appeased (5). (5). I was delighted when I found further proof about Rashi’s view in his own commentary on another verse in Chronicles where he is explicit about the appeasement of the land itself (6). The view that the earth itself is appeased is also supported by other commentators (7).

More controversially the relationship between the holy land and the Jewish people is interpreted as being expressed in profound loyalty between the land and “its people”. The Torah states that as part of the process of the Jews being exiled, God “will make the Land desolate” and “your enemies will “desolate [as a verb] upon it” (8). This is interpreted to mean that no other nation that occupies this land will ever truly thrive on it (9). “They will not manage to build walls or towers on it… as the land will not receive any nation or tongue… the land will not welcome anyone until her chicks return to her” (10). (Of course, these types of teachings can make it harder for religious Jews to truly listen to Palestinian narratives of loss of a thriving life on the land. This important and painful discussion is beyond the scope of this blog post.)

Returning to the group of boys at the beginning of this blog post, I can appreciate various ways that connections form between people and places. We are embodied spirits and our bodies exist in places. Our wellbeing is enhanced when we feel connected to where we live and care for those places. Having spent a few more sessions with the boys since we watched the film I trust that they will develop the connections between themselves, their place and accurate understanding of and positive connections with their multicultural, multi-faith diverse fellow inhabitants of this blessed country.

Notes:

1.   https://www.before1770.com
2.  Leviticus 26:33 and 34
3.  Chizkuni on this verse
4.  Rashi on 26:34
5.  Mizrahi, on Rashi 26:34, he explains that Rashi’s intention in shifting toward appeasing God is that ultimately, once the land itself has been appeased, the land, now reconciled to her people, seeks to appease God’s anger about how the land was worked during the Sabbatical year
6. Rashi on 2 Chronicles, 36:20
7. Chizkuni and Abrabanel, on Leviticus 26:33, Metzudat David and Metzudat Tzion on 2 Chronicles, 36:21
8.  Leviticus 26:32
9.  Rashi on Leviticus 26:32 based on Torat Cohanim/Sifra Bechukotai 6:8, 
10. Bchaya, on Leviticus 26:32
    
    

Limitations of the Legal

A buck brazenly flaunts the law of the land
photo & title by Jason Molenda http://www.molenda.com/
used under creative commons license

I read some parenting advice from a psychotherapist in a Jewish newspaper column[i] that really annoyed me. A mother is driving her 10 year old daughter who has fallen asleep in the front seat of the car. Three minutes from her home she stops to pick up her 11 year old son. He is furious when he sees his sister in the front seat. Their family has a rule that the oldest child sits in the front seat. He hits his sister and begins shouting “you’re sitting in my seat! You’re sitting in my seat!” The mother shouts at him and he finally gets into the back.   

The advice given is that although the violence of the son was wrong, the situation could have been avoided if the mother was “more sensitive to the dynamics of sibling rivalry…you could have woken your daughter shortly before arriving at your son’s friend’s house…” and ask the daughter to move to the back because she would have to wake up in a few minutes anyway.

Follow the rules?

The question of how much importance we should give to rules is a difficult one. On one hand there are times when the law needs to be the primary consideration.  Laws are one great way to pursue justice. Disregarding laws out of compassion for one side of a dispute is unjust toward people on the other side[ii]. Despite the importance of laws, we are taught that thinking; “what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours”… is the attitude of the people of the wicked selfish city of Sodom[iii]. Failure to go beyond the letter of the law is given as one of the causes of the destruction of the Jewish temple[iv]. In the case of the “oldest in the front seat rule”, I would not be telling the mother to be more sensitive to the sense of entitlement her older son feels. I would be more concerned about his rigid insistence on getting everything he is entitled to under “the rules” and helping him work on developing a more flexible attitude.

Challenging the rules from within– the first feminists

An important variable is the option not to challenge the system of laws but instead seek “clarification” or reinterpretation for an equitable outcome. This was the case with a woman named Noa and her four sisters known as the daughters of Zelophehad who challenged the position of the inheritance law that only men could inherit a portion in the land of Canaan[v]. Initially, the sisters were given the run-around, first going to Moses to be told to speak to leaders of hundreds, only to be told that this is a difficult matter that only Moses can deal with. Eventually they approached them all at the same time. Moses is so taken with their argument that he wished to advocate for them before God but he is told that they are right and don’t need an advocate[vi].

The sisters don’t challenge the legitimacy of the system of law. According to commentary Noa et al. displayed great tactical and legal wisdom. “Their petition followed a razor-sharp line of reasoning that incorporated all the relevant laws and principles, and even formulated the proper decision. This is why Scripture says, “And Moses brought their judgment before G‑d”—their judgment, not their question, for their petition included the legal argument and its ruling[vii]”.  This approach assumed that they did not overcome the law but that in response to their complaint the existing but not yet revealed law was uncovered. “The daughters of Zelophehad speak rightly” is explained as God saying: “[As they spoke it,] so is this section of Torah written before Me on high[viii].” This approach could be applied to divine laws, when it comes to man-made laws, of course they can be wrong and often are, it is then a question of the principle and value of the rule of law vs. a particular poor law.

Parallel in Islam?

An intriguing idea in Islam that seems related to this is the principle of Maqasid[ix] (Maqasid at Shari’ah). My understanding of this approach is that it considers the broad purposes of the law alongside the letter of the law. Key purposes are compassion and benefit. “A mere conformity to rules that went against the purpose and vision of the Shari’ah was therefore generally unacceptable”. An Imam I know suggested that the Malaysians liberal approach to a widow’s rights to the family home might be following Maqasid[x].

Justice seen to be done

Perhaps what is most challenging is when law appears legalistic and out of touch with “common sense”. Insisting on following the rule about who sits in the front seat when another child is half asleep, I think would qualify. Either way, legalistic or “common sense” the losing party is likely to feel resentful. With self-interest bias, there is the danger that justice will not appear to have been done to those who have lost and may result in conflict. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa is one example that appears to have transcended the normal legal process and whatever its imperfections, South Africa seems to be in a much better place than many have feared it would be when the blacks came to power.

Laundered land? Perfectly legal

This dilemma is the background to the dramatic story of Balaam and his donkey. He is recruited by the king of Moab and ends up blessing the Israelites instead of cursing them. Prior to this we have a brief battle in which an area in present day Jordan between the rivers Jabbok and Arnon, thought to be the modern Wady Mojib[xi], is conquered from an Emorite king[xii]. This area was originally Moabite land and the Israelites had kinship ties [xiii]and strict instructions from God not to distress or provoke them to war[xiv]. Despite these ties the Israelites feel justified in holding on to the land because it has been conquered from them by the Amorites and so he “purified it for Israel”[xv]. It has been described as “theft that is without wrongdoing[xvi]”. What a fascinating phrase!

The Israelites saw this as Kosher but the text does not tell us how the people of Moab-Amon felt about it[xvii]. A midrash suggests that they felt afraid because they saw the Israelites have conquered “our land”[xviii]. A few verses later, their king hires Balaam the sorcerer to try to harm the Israelites. 300 years later, the king of Amon refers to this conquest “Because Israel took away my land, when they came out of Egypt, from Arnon and up to the Jabbok…and now restore them peacefully [xix]”. Jephthah, the Israelites’ leader, counter this claim, “Israel did not take the land of Moab and the land of the children of Ammon… the God of Israel, delivered Sichon (King of the Amorites) and all his people into the hand of Israel, … and Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites…from the Arnon up to the Jabbok…when Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns…and in all the cities that are along Arnon, three hundred years; why did you not recover them at that time”? In Jewish law about land quarrels, undisputed occupation for three years is seen as proof of ownership[xx].  This argument does not persuade the Amonites, instead they go to war.

Conclusion

The informed view in my community is that going even to a religious court to resolve a dispute is a very bad outcome.  Laws are great things, but in the real world their value is sometimes, somewhat limited.

[i] Wikler, Dr. M, Hamodia 28 June 2012, p. C14

[ii] While Jewish tradition encourages charity, mediation and compromise it warns against “glorifying the poor” in legal disputes, which means that if a very rich person is legally correct in a dispute with a poor person the judge would still decide in favour of the rich person and cannot change the ruling out of compassion.

[iii] Pirkei Avot 5:13

[iv] Talmud Bava Metzia 30b

[v] Numbers 27:1-7

[vi] Abarbanel

[vii] Anaf Yosef commentary on Ein Yaakov, Bava Batra 119b, cited by Schneider, S, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2222/jewish/A-Daughter-of-Zelophehad-Speaks.htm

[viii] Rashi to Numbers 27:7; Targum Yonatan ibid.; Yalkut Shimoni ibid.; Sifri ibid cited in Schneider

[ix] Kamali, Mohammed Hashim (2010), He is Professor of Law at the International Islamic University Malaysia. He is author of numerous articles published in learned journals and many works including Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Criminal Law in Islam and Freedom of Expression in Islam.  http://www.faithinallah.org/higher-objectives-of-islamic-law-maqasid-ash-sharia/

[x] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/inheritance-laws-gender-sharia-halacha.html

[xi] “A river and wady of eastern Palestine, the modern Wady Mojib (or Wady el-Mojib). The name means perhaps "noisy," a term which well describes the latter part of the course of the river. Its length is about 45 miles, from its rise in the desert to its entrance into the Dead Sea. It spreads out to a breadth of 100 feet here and there, but for the most part is narrow; and though low in summer, in the winter season it is in places 8 or 10 feet deep. It runs at first north-westerly, but afterward its course becomes westerly. Its striking feature is the steepness and narrowness of the ravine through which it passes shortly before it empties into the lake, opposite Engedi. Between the lofty limestone hills, which cause this precipitous descent, and the lake, the river expands into a shallow estuary nearly 100 feet wide. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1799-arnon

[xii] Numbers 21:25

[xiii] Moab and Amon were descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot

[xiv] Deuteronomy 2:9

[xv] Talmud Hulin 60b, Rashi to Numbers 21:26, I found it interesting to read that Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish states that there are many verses that are fit to be burned but they are in fact the body of the Torah such as the verse explaining the legal basis for the annexation of these lands

[xvi] Midrash Tanchuma Balak 2

[xvii] A midrash states that Balak saw Israel sitting calmly, surrounded by the clouds of glory, Manna falls on them, the Slav birds rise, a well (in a rock) goes with them… (cited in Torah Shlaima Vol. 42, p.6)

[xviii] Midrash Tanchuma Balak 2

[xix] Judges 11:13

[xx] Talmud Bava Batra chapter 3

Gratitude and Faith and my friend the Palestinian Imam at NSLF

As I write these words, I am sitting in Canberra airport feeling very blessed.  I am reflecting on the fact that I can do better at being grateful. I was talking to a friend a few days earlier who asked if I was traveling these days. I initially said no. Then I casually remembered that the next morning I was flying to Canberra (Australia’s capital) to be a co-keynote speaker with a Palestinian Australian Imam/Sheik Ahmad Abu Ghazaleh at the National Students Leadership Forum[i] dinner.  What a delightful privilege it was to be speaking to spiritually switched on, sincere student leaders grappling with the essential questions of life, values, faith and leadership and their hosts; members of Australia’s parliament.

I talked to them about faith as a choice rather than a by-product of certainty, and of the experiences Ahmad and I had in doing our work together[ii].  I told them my story of being an awkward kid from Brooklyn, who is now privileged to work with profoundly good people in deeply rewarding work. This is on top of the magnificent gift of being surrounded by a loving family. I should “come into His gates with thanks, (into) His courtyard with praises”[iii].

First Fruits and Gratitude

I recited a verse in Hebrew from the Torah about faith and gratitude from our weekly reading about how a farmer must bring his first fruit to Jerusalem[iv] and recite a pre-prepared speech or declaration of gratitude. And you shall come to the kohen (Priest) who will be in those days, and say to him, "I declare this day to the Lord, your God, that I have come to the land which the Lord swore to our forefathers to give us..." The speech then recounts the slavery and “our affliction, our toil, and our oppression” in Egypt, the Exodus and the divine gift of the holy land.  

Enlarge the “Good” we are grateful for

It is instructive that the farmer does not merely thank God for some figs, or grapes. The fruit came from a good land which he sees as a gift from God. The fact that he is not a slave in Egypt suffering oppression and affliction is also somehow rolled into the gratitude relating to the little basket of fruit. There is a temptation to minimize some of the good that is done for us. Perhaps we don’t want to be too indebted. People says things like can you “just do this little thing for me?” The impact of this is to decrease gratitude. Instead we are taught to be like the good guest, and we should maximize the significance of what is done for us[v].

Talking Land with a Palestinian Sheik

As we were preparing our joint speech, Sheik Ahmad expressed some surprise about the way that I planned to talk about the holy land. In his speech he shared some of his own feelings about the holy land that he calls Palestine. He expressed his sadness about the time his son asked him to show him where he comes from on the world map, but there was no Palestine on the map. How to explain this to a child? 

Of course, we both want to see a just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. This does not mean that we have developed a shared position on the politics of it, we have not. Instead it is about listening to each other with respect, empathy and curiosity. This is less than the full agreement that many people on either side want but it enables us to see each other as human beings and work together to ensure that people of many groups including Jews, Muslims and Arabs are viewed as people not political objects. Following the lesson relating to the first fruit, I assert emphatically that is no small thing to be grateful for. 

Contrast with being verbally abused

It helps to consider the possibility of not having something to appreciate what we do have. At the dinner, I contrasted the love and friendship I enjoy with Sheik Ahmad with my experience last week in Lakemba (a part of Sydney with a high Arabic population). Two young Arabic men saw me across the street and asked each other in Arabic, Yahudi? Is that a Jew? Yeah, I am a Yahudi, I shouted to them across the street and waved. Most of what they said in reply is not fit for print. It was rounded off with heil Hitler and included the words Zionist, Palestinian and 1948 among the profanities and abuse.

What were you thinking? My choice

At the conference a young Arabic Muslim man asked the following question. He said he lived in one of the Muslim areas that I described. “What were you thinking when you chose to walk down these streets (looking like I do, a clearly identifiable Jew?)? I explained that in spite of being well aware of all the arguments against trying to bridge the divides between Muslims and others generally and especially with Jews, I choose to focus on the positive I have a choice between focusing on the men who abused me or to focus on people like Sheik Ahmad and many other Muslims and Arabs of good will. I choose to act and think with good faith toward the possibilities of the human family.

Faith as choice rather than certainty

For some, faith in God or religion might be about expressing what they have discovered to be certainly true. For me, faith is more about choosing to prioritize one set of ideas and facts over another. Not everything in my religion resonates for me and fits comfortable with my ideas about how things should be.  There are certainly aspects of the behavior of some adherents of Judaism that make me want to cry out (almost) like the Prophet Jeremiah  “O who would give (make it happen) that I had a guesthouse in the desert, that I might leave my people and go away from them! For they are all adulterers…[vi]!  Yet, in spite of my reservations, I stick by my tradition. Like the choice I make to remain faithful to my work, this is a choice of faith, of being faithful to a path that carries in it great truths, guidance and sanctity alongside the other things I struggle with.

Gratitude to the Enemy?

Some might find it odd for a Jew to be expressing gratitude for a friendship with a Palestinian. Yet in our tradition we find Kind David expressing gratitude toward prince Hanun [vii] a member of the Amonite people who have the distinction of being one of the groups about whom it is written “do not seek their peace or good, forever[viii]”. These were the descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot who was cared for and even rescued by him from the sword and captivity. Instead of returning the favor to Abraham’s descendants these ingrates[ix] “did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt” and passed near their territory.  David’s gratitude is justified creatively; it is only seeking the good of Amon that is a problem, not reciprocating it[x].    

A harsh thought about Gratitude

There is a confronting teaching that failure to appreciate the gifts we are given can result in these being taken away.  The passage about the first fruit follows the one that refers to the attack on the Israelites by Amalek[xi]. This juxtaposition hints at the idea that Amalek’s attack was a consequence of the Israelites being ingrates[xii], with their complaint “why did he bring us up from Egypt to kill us and our children by thirst?!”  There is some poetic justice in the fact that the attackers themselves, the Amalek, who were descendants of Esau were also ingrates.  Because Abraham was told that his children will experience a difficult exile, either the children of Jacob or Esau would have to fulfill the prophecy. With the Israelites suffering Egyptian slavery, Amalek was freed of this burden. God says let the Amalekites who are ingrates and pay back the Israelites who were also Ingrates.

I find this a bit harsh. I would be inclined to think that a compassionate God will forgive me my inadequate gratitude and whingeing. Yet, there is a strong message here about working on developing an attitude of gratitude. I choose to keep faith with the guidance here and put my discomfort on the back burner. This is not to say, I deny the difficult bits. My blog has confronted some of these even when I don’t have a neat resolution but also side-stepped other issue. 

This dual approach plays out in the portion of the first fruit, we talk about our gratitude, we mention the ugly times in Egypt, yet there is a letter Yud (equivalent to the number 10) missing from the word וַיְבִאֵנוּ and he brought us[xiii] to signify the 10 tests Jews challenged God with[xiv]. Not mentioned, but not completely ignored either, just de-emphasised. This, I think, is the challenge of faith and gratitude, with eyes wide open, seeing cups both half empty and half full but choosing to give greater important to the good, the instructive and the promising.  

---

[i] http://nslf.org.au/

[ii] http://togetherforhumanity.org.au/

[iii] Psalms 104:3

[iv] Deuteronomy  26:1-15

[v] Yalkut Meam Loez, Rabbi Yaakov Cooli/Rabbi Yitzchak of Agriso & Rabbi Yitzchak Arguiti

[vi] Jeremiah 9:1

[vii] Chronicles I, 19:1-2… Nahash the king of Ammon died, and his son reigned in his stead. David said, "I shall show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, because his father showed me kindness." And David sent emissaries to comfort him concerning his father, and David's servants came to the land of the children of Ammon, to Hanun to comfort him.

[viii] Deuteronomy  23:4-7

[ix] Ramban

[x] Meam Loez

[xi] Deuteronomy 25:17-19

[xii] Tzemach David, quoted in Yalkut Meam Loez,

[xiii] Deuteronomy  26:9

[xiv] Baal Haturim