Belonging and Difference Vayerah

On Wednesday night I listened to Ian Thorpe speak at a dinner in aid of my brother’s charity, the Jewish House. Ian talked about his experience as a world record breaking Olympic champion swimmer, who also struggled with mental health challenges. He gave a riveting account of the mental struggle to win an Olympic swimming race in the last few seconds after being behind. But more importantly, he touched on his experiences of coming out both as gay and as someone suffering depression.

Mr Thorpe did not elaborate on his experience of coming out. However, the need for acceptance by people we care about and a feeling of belonging among them, is so important to all of us. As I explored the Torah reading this week I learned that Abraham was also concerned about his social ties. Abraham had been instructed to circumcise himself as a sign of a covenant between him and God. However he was concerned that this act “would set him apart from his generation, in his skin and flesh. This might lead to him not being able to welcome guests anymore as they would stay away from him…” (1) This surprised me a little, because I had the impression of Abraham as the Iconoclastic outsider - champion of monotheism is a world of polytheism - who embraced his “otherness” (2).

On Thursday morning, I reflected on my experienced at the dinner where I sat among some 1000, mostly Jewish guests, who were there in aid of the Jewish House’s services for people in crisis, such as homelessness, mental illness, and domestic violence. While I on the same page as the crowd last night regarding support for the needy, I wonder how many of them agree with my interfaith work. When it comes to that aspect of me, do I fully belong? It is useful for me to keep in mind that Abraham combined otherness in pursuit of his vision and principles with caring about being connected to his community. Indeed, at the end of the night, one guest shared with me her belief in the spiritual validity of my work with people of other faiths. 

The combination of being accepted and being true to oneself is not always easy. A choice one needs to make is whether to hide some parts of ourselves or "come out". Abraham consulted his friends about the merits of going public about his next step in otherness and decided he would publicize his decision to circumcise himself  (3).

The flip side of this is accepting that sometimes there are communities that won’t accept you and might not even be worth belonging in. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, sought to integrate with the xenophobic society of Sodom. (In Jewish tradition, the wickedness of Sodom was primarily expressed in their cruelty to visitors or poor outsiders). Lot appeared to succeed when he was appointed as a judge by the Sodomites (4). This thin veneer of acceptance of Lot by Sodom fell away quickly when Lot showed his commitment to hospitality. An angry mob of Sodomites reminded Lot that he was an alien and threatened him (5).

It is not easy to accept the fact that some social connections are not working and one needs to move on. Lot was instructed by angels to leave Sodom before it would be destroyed and take him down with them. Yet, Lot hesitated, and had to be dragged out of Sodom (6). Lot and his wife were warned not to look back (7). It is important not to ruminate about what might have been. However the separation from Sodom was difficult for Lot’s wife and she turned back, perhaps in sadness about those left behind (8). The consequence of turning back for Lot’s wife is that she was instantly turned into a pillar of salt (9). 

It is entirely appropriate to seek closeness with one’s communities, even if there is not a perfect value alignment, but there are times when separateness is appropriate. In those cases, it is ok to be sad, but it is important “not to look back”.

Notes

1)     Toras Hachida, Vayera 5, p. 103, based on Midrash Rabba

2)     See Likutei Likburim by the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. YY Schneerson, who talked about the concept of Ivri as one is on the “other side” to the rest of society

3)     Toras Hachida, ibid

4)     Rashi to Genesis 19:1, based on Bereshit Rabba 50:3

5)     Genesis 19:9, as interpreted by Sacks, J. (2009) Covenant and Conversation, Maggid, Jerusalem, p. 112-114

6)     Genesis 19:16

7)     Genesis 19:17

8)     Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 25,  in Torah Shlaima, 145, p. 812

9)     Genesis 19:26

Child Sacrifice

This image by "Speedy95" is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial
No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

On Wednesday morning I gave a lift to a man whose home burnt down in the Blue Mountains fires; he got on a train to try to retrieve some of his remaining possessions from a nearby suburb. As I dropped him at the station I could only hope he would come back safely. He did.  On 702 Radio I heard a heartfelt expression of gratitude by a woman named Melissa to all the interstate and out- of- area fire fighters. There is something about situations of vulnerability that brings out the best in people. Yet, we also have the horrific phenomenon of child sacrifice in our traditions and in other forms even today. The welfare of children is not always protected adequately; in some cases, other priorities have interfered with decision making by otherwise good people who should have been more focused on what is best for children.

Child sacrifice, more precisely a story about it, has united Muslims and Jews: Muslims celebrated the Eid last week that commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son; Jews read about it in the weekly Torah portion Vayerah. The same story - I am told by a Christian friend - has huge significance for Christians. Our Torah reading of last week included five instances involving a parent or a community and some form of sacrifice of a “child” (1), involving two brothers and three sisters.

Abraham had prepared to slaughter  his son Isaac   as an offering to obey God’s command (2). One way of understanding Abraham’s reaction to this command is that he has an inner struggle with his conscience or doubts (3) as illustrated in two Midrashic stories. In one story, Satan suggests “tomorrow you will be told you are a shedder of blood!” (4); in a second, Satan questions whether the command was from God or actually from Satan himself (5). Despite these thoughts,  Abraham persists with his mission and shows great faith, which is celebrated in Judaism. In the end, the notion of human sacrifice is categorically rejected by God, who tells Abraham via an angel that he has proven his loyalty but he “should not send his hand to the child nor should he do anything to him” (6).

Another case of a child being sacrificed is only hinted at in the text and is clearly condemned. God refers to  the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah “…their sin has become very grave, I will descend now and see whether according to her cry, which has come to Me, they have done” (7).  Commentary interprets “her cry” as referring to the cry of a specific girl (8). 

“They had announced in Sodom that anyone who gives bread to a poor person or a foreigner will be burned in fire. Plotis, the daughter of Lot…saw a poor person in the city square… Every day as she [Lot’s daughter] went out to draw water from the well she put some food from her house in her pitcher and would feed the poor person. The Sodomites wondered how this poor person remained alive. Until the matter became known and Plotis was taken out to be burned…” (9) 

According to Jewish teachings, the cruelty of Sodom was motivated by a deterrence strategy that was aimed at keeping outsiders out and to preserve wealth (10). There are echoes of this approach in asylum seeker policies referred to in Australia as “border protection”. In Sodom, the life of young Plotis was sacrificed in an effort to maintain this xenophobic policy; in our time children in detention continue to pay the price for deterrence strategies.

Plotis’ sisters are offered as the next sacrifice when Lot’s visitors are threatened with Sodomy by an angry mob. In trying to protect his guests, Lot offers his two daughters who “have never known a man” to the mob. (11). Lot’s action is strongly condemned in one Midrash that suggests he should have killed or allowed himself to be killed to protect his daughters (12). An alternative interpretation is that Lot has no intention of allowing his daughters to be violated. Instead he is thought to be sarcastic just as someone might say “my house is open for you, just take anything you want”, knowing that this would not be done (13).

Another sacrifice, not in terms of losing a life, but rather the loss of a parent- child relationship and home, relates to the case of Ishmael. Sarah becomes concerned about Ishmael’s possible adverse influence on her son Isaac   (14). One interpretation is that Ishmael captured grasshoppers and offered them as sacrifices to idols (15). Abraham feels very sad about his son Ishmael, but in the end banishes him, giving him some bread and water and sending him off with his mother. There are other opinions that Ishmael was shooting arrows at Isaac with the intent to kill him (16), so the decision to banish Ishmael is as much a case of child protection as child sacrifice.  I also draw some comfort from traditions that Abraham goes out to the desert twice over coming years to visit Ishmael, demonstrating that his fatherly love endures (17). 

One very moving incident involves Hagar, the banished homeless maidservant wandering in the desert, who sees her son getting very sick and dehydrated;  so she puts him down under a tree. “She went and sat herself down the distance of arrow shots because she said (to herself) I will not see the death of the boy, and she sat  from afar, and she raised her voice and wept” (18). Her son Ishmael would have been desperate for her comforting presence, yet she feels so broken she cannot bear any more pain.

On Sunday, while I was writing the first draft of this article, I found myself stressed about a task set for me by an academic advisor. As I finally felt I was making some progress, I heard my son crying in another room. I had to tear myself away from what I was doing and try to comfort him. He was frustrated by his efforts learning to ride a bicycle. I took him to a park and, in almost no time, he triumphed with his riding and was thrilled!

I close with prayers for all vulnerable people suffering from fire, poverty, policies against “illegals” and children who depend on the good judgement and care of others.

(1)    There are various traditions about the ages of the five “children”, but all are referred to as the child of either Abraham or Lot.
(2)    Genesis 22
(3)    Leibowitz, Nehama, New Studies in Bereshit Genesis, p.196
(4)    Midrash Tanchuma
(5)    Midrash Vayosha, Bet Hamidrash Jellineck, Tel Aviv, Ozar Midrashim, Eisenstein, New York 1928, cited in Leibowitz, Nehama, New Studies in Bereshit Genesis, p. 206
(6)    Genesis 22:12
(7)    Genesis 18:21-22
(8)    Talmud, Sanhedrin 109b, quoted in Rashi, Beresheet Rabbah
(9)    Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 25, cited in Torah Shlaima p.776. In this version she is a married woman rather than a young girl as stated in theTalmud. An alternative commentary states that she was raped (Midrash Chefetz, also cited in Torah Shlaima).
(10)     Ramban articulates this view powerfully
(11)     Genesis 19:4-7
(12)     Midrash Tanchuma Vayerah 12, an alternative interpretation actually praised Lot for his dedication to his guests and compares his sacrifice to that of Moses who was prepared to sacrifice himself for Israel (Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 25, cited in Torah Shlamia p.794)
(13)     Drashat Even Shuiv, in the name of Rabbenu Chananel, cited in Torah Shlamia p.794. This interpretation is certainly more comfortable, although a similar case involving the rape of a concubine (Judges Ch. 19-20) suggests that this outlandish bargain could actually be struck.
(14)     Genesis 21:9-14
(15)     Tosefta Sotah 6
(16)     Tosefta Sotah 6, cited in Rashi
(17)     Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer cited in Meam Loez
(18)     Genesis 21:16

“We are the Good Ones”, Lot/Lut & Abraham – & the Jewish Muslim Relationship

Today, Oct 26, Muslims will be celebrating Eid Al Adha. The first religious conflict I ever became aware of between Jews and Muslims relates to this commemoration of Abraham’s nearly sacrificing his son. The Torah states that the son was Isaac, while Muslims insist it was Ishmael. Hasidic bridge builder, Lee Weisman demonstrates an impressive ability to find commonality within difference by focusing on the core meaning of this ultimate expression of devotion by Abraham and God’s mercy in preventing the sacrifice from going ahead. He also acknowledges the difference respectfully[i]. His blog www.abrahamstent.com is an impressive example of a journey in respect and coexistence.

   

Debating whose ancestor was ‘the great one’ is not useful, and I am pleased not to have noticed any arguments about this recently.  One of the least useful dynamics in interpersonal relationships is the attempt to position oneself as “the good one”, this often but not always also involves positioning the other as the bad one. The fight to be positioned on the pedestal can be bitter and intense. It is as if our value as human beings depends on it.

Sure, we all are happy to say that we are not perfect. Still, some of us seem extremely determined to deny certain flaws, or to attribute a large portion of blame to others. Our willingness to acknowledge our own faults and manage them makes us better people. Yet, to be focused on negativity can make us depressed and lose hope[ii]. We must balance honest self-criticism with fully appreciating our positive points[iii] and there is little value in berating ourselves. Similarly, we can take a dual approach to our iconic figures, preserve a positive image of them, even considering some generous explanations of their faults but not deny them. A generous approach is also useful when portraying the “representative” figure of the “other”.

Portrayals of Biblical Figures: “ours good”?

Within my “ultra-orthodox” environment there is a pattern of interpretation which portrays Abraham as perfect or nearly perfect, in sharp contrast to his nephew Lot who is denigrated and to an extent his eldest son Ishmael. This becomes more interesting when considering the fact that while Abraham is considered Jewish, the others are classified as not being Jewish[iv]. I must strongly quality and contextualize the issue, there is plenty of criticism of Jewish biblical figures in the Torah and even Moses is harshly reprimanded. Yet, the contrast between some portrayals of Abraham and others around his time interests me.

Lot/Lut Sinner or Prophet?

Let us begin with Lot (Lut in Arabic) the nephew of Abraham, who I was surprised to learn is considered a completely righteous prophet in Islam, calling the people of Sodom to repent[v]. While the Torah sees the sins of Sodom primarily about hostility to outsiders and cruelty to travellers partly motivated by greed[vi], Jewish sources see Lot prioritising financial opportunity over morality in his choice to live in Sodom. “And Lot raised his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered… Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain, and he pitched his tents until Sodom… And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful against the Lord[vii]”. Despite the evil of the people, Lot did not desist from living with them[viii].

Inner Strength and Loyalty

I was delighted when I found an alternative view in the commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi, known as Radak (which had been hidden away for 600 years then found among manuscripts in the royal French library in Paris)[ix]. In his view Lot was not concerned about the nature of the people because he was “so strong in his faith and decency that he did not learn from their ways[x]”. In fact, Lot goes on to eagerly welcome strangers[xi] if defiance of the sodomite xenophobic sentiment and policies. Radak also highlights Lot’s loyalty to Abraham and God when he leaves his grandfather to go with Abraham on his journey from their ‘land, birthplace and family’[xii] and again when he leaves the plenty of Egypt to return to the famine afflicted Canaan because  he did not want to part from Abraham[xiii].

Offering daughter for Rape?

One of the most shocking moments in the life of Lot is when he offers his daughters to a mob to be raped, when they demand he hand over his guests. Lot pleads: “Behold now I have two daughters who were not intimate with a man. I will bring them out to you, and do to them as you see fit; only to these men do nothing, because they have come under the shadow of my roof[xiv]." One source ridicules Lot, “It is customary that a man would allow himself to be killed for his daughters and his wife, he would either kill or be killed and this one hands over his daughters to be toyed with, the Holy One Blessed Be He said to him, by your life (I swear), for himself he is keeping them, and in the end children at school will laugh when they read Lot’s daughters became pregnant from their father[xv]”.   

This portrayal of Lot is quite disturbing. Again there are alternative approaches. One praises him for this terrible sacrifice. Lot is compared to Moses who was prepared to sacrifice himself and Lot is prepared to sacrifice his precious daughters to protect his guests[xvi]. Perhaps more satisfying is the view that Lot was bluffing, with a preposterous offer, that the mob would have known was not serious. Like a person who says ‘my house is open, take whatever you want’…knowing that he won’t do it[xvii]”.

Perfect Abraham & Sarah?

The virtues of Abraham are strongly present in the Torah. He is even called to be “Tamim[xviii]” which could be translated as complete.  Yet, some commentaries criticise him and Sarah for the way they dealt with the conflict between Sarah and Abraham’s second wife. Hagar loses respect for her former mistress Sarah, when Hagar becomes pregnant[xix], while Sarah remains childless. Hagar claims that Sarah could not possibly be as good as she portrays herself to be, because if she was so good she would be rewarded with a child[xx].  “Sarah afflicted Hagar, and both her deeds and Abrahams complicity with them as deemed sinful[xxi].

Conclusion

Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk said: “there is nothing as whole as a broken heart”, in that same spirit we could say there is nothing as beautiful as an imperfect human being who makes ethical choices and do some decent things despite their human frailties. There is no need to denigrate the iconic figures representing the other to make our heroes look greater in contrast to them. We have options in the way we interpret out texts and the portrayal of its characters, which includes seeing them in a more positive light as well acknowledging their flaws and faults. We need to resist the temptation to focus on the negatives in the other, and instead focus much more on that which brings us together.

---

[i] http://www.abrahamstent.com/2012/10/22/jewish-thoughts-on-eid-al-adha/

[ii] Tanya Chapter 1 explores this dilemma

[iii] Rabbi Y. Y. Schneerson, the 6^th Lubavitcher Rebbe teaches that just as it is wrong to deny our faults, it is equally wrong to deny our positive abilities.

[iv] This theme was brought to my attention by a Dvar Torah by Suart Klamen, on http://www.facebook.com/groups/120282318015774/permalink/456404577736878/

[v] “Behold, their brother Lut said to them: “Will ye not fear (Allah)? I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust. So fear Allah and obey me… Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!”

They said: “If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!”

He said: “I do detest your doings.” (Surat ash-Shuara: 160-168)
We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.”

And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!” (Surat al-Araf: 80-82)
Translation from ww.islamicity.com/science/QuranAndScience/destruction/GeneratedFilesnoframe/ThePeopleofLutandTheCitywhichwasTurnedUpsideDown.htm

[vi] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/search?q=Sodom my post about the sin of Sodom in its treatment of outsiders

[vii] Genesis 13:10-13

[viii] Rashi

[ix] Title page of Pressburg Edition 1842, reprinted 2006

[x] Radak

[xi] Genesis 19:1-3

[xii] Genesis 12:1-5

[xiii] Genesis 13:1 and Radak commentary, these views also plays out in the different views of Lot in the commentary about a quarrel between the shepherds of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 13:5-7). The Midrash explains that there was a major argument about grazing their animals on private Canaanite lands, with Lot’s people justifying it and Abraham’s staff strict about avoiding theft and this argument also involving Lot and Abraham themselves (Bereshit Rabba 41).  Another view is that this was really about Lot abandoning his faith in God to return to the idol worship practiced by the Canaanite and Perizite people (Zohar 84a and other sources).  Radak again has a more positive view of Lot. He explains that the dispute was simply about finding sufficient grazing for their ample livestock. 

[xiv] Genesis 19:7

[xv] Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 12, in fact he does sleep with them when they are convinced they are the only survivors after the apocalyptic destruction of Sodom

[xvi] Pirkey Drabbi Eliezer 25

[xvii] Rabbenu Chananel, quoted in Drashat Even Shuiv, cited in Torah Shlaima p.794, note 44

[xviii] Genesis 17:1

[xix] Genesis 16:4-6

[xx] Rashi

[xxi] Ramban to Genesis 16:6