Carrots and Sticks? Motives for worship and repentance Nitzavim- Vayeilech

Carrots, Sticks or Love?
Image reproduced with permission from opensource.com

My 6 year old son told me about a story he learned at school. Rabbi Akiva was asked why he studied Torah when the Roman forbade it? He replied with a story about a sly fox that told fish “why do you swim back and forth to escape the fishermen, come up here on shore where you will be safe with me”.  He then explained that just as the fish would die without water, God would kills us if don’t obey the Torah so we better obey. While the original intent of the story is about Torah being as essential to the Jew as water is to a fish, to a six year old it took on a more literal meaning.

I wonder to what extent my son’s understanding is reflective of Torah’s own broader message. The punitive approach challenges me in two ways. It is jarring when viewed from a modern perspective that frowns on fear as a factor in personal decision making and bristles at the idea of an authority figure issuing threats. It is also out of step with my Chabad upbringing in which talk about hell or divine punishment was rare. Being the last week of the month of Elul during which I am supposed to reflect on worship and “return” to God is a good time to grapple with the motivations my tradition presents for doing so.

The Reward & Punishment Approach

Perhaps there is among you a man, woman, family, or tribe, whose heart strays this day from the Lord, our God …. The Lord will not be willing to forgive him; rather, then, the Lord's fury and His zeal will fume against that man, and the entire curse written in this book will rest upon him, and the Lord will obliterate his name from beneath the heavens... plagues of that land and the diseases with which the Lord struck it. Sulfur and salt have burned up its entire land! It cannot be sown, nor can it grow [anything], not [even] any grass will sprout upon it. It is like the overturning of Sodom, Gemorrah… which the Lord overturned in His fury and in His rage[i].  

This approach of warnings about punishment appears repeatedly in the Torah, often, alongside promises of reward. “And you will return and listen to the voice of the Lord, and fulfil all His commandments, which I command you this day.   And the Lord, your God, will make you abundant for good in all the work of your hands … the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soil.[ii]”

I acknowledge the prominence of reward and punishment in my tradition. One of the main principles of Jewish faith is “I believe with perfect faith that G-d rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress Him[iii]”. The fact that this makes me uncomfortable is partially an expression of the conflict of being true to tradition while being part of the world and this time.

A Difference between Threats and Warnings?

My six year old said something mildly threatening to his older brother recently. After I reprimanded him, I reflected on the fact that my warnings to him when I was not happy with his behaviour were not that different from what he just said to his brother. I guess I can be more careful with the wording of my warnings. At the same time, I think one difference between legitimate warnings and offensive threats is that I have the authority to warn him and punish him for his own good, while he does not. While we are right in condemning tyrants for using harsh methods to control people, God surely has the authority to punish as he sees fit.   

Hurts me more than it hurts you

One teaching that softens this somewhat relates to the verse. “And I will hide my face from them[iv]”.  “This is said in way of affection like a person whose son sinned against him and (the father) tells the teacher to hit him but he cannot bear to see the beating of his son because has mercy toward him so he hides his face[v]”.

The Right Thing for the Right Reason

Being motivated in worship by fear of punishment or expectation of reward is not the ideal. Antigonus states in the Mishna “Do not be like the servants who serve the master on condition of reward, but rather be like the servants who serve the master not on condition of reward”[vi]. One interpretation of this is that a person should think of the performance of the commandments as if he had an explicit condition that he would not get any reward, seeing his service as being for free,  so that he is not confused with the issue of a righteous who suffer and wicked who prosper[vii].  

Maimonides states that the ultimate motive should be “doing the truth because it is true[viii]”. A person should not say: "I will fulfil the commandments Mitzvot of the Torah …in order to receive all the blessings which are contained within it” He continues with this theme and even rejects the motive of trying to get to heaven. “Or (obeying the commandments) in order to merit the life of the world to come.  [Similarly,] I will avoid all the sins… so that I will be saved from all the curses… It is not fitting to serve God in this manner[ix]”.

Philosopher’s undue influence?

Another great scholar, Abrabanel[x] challenges Maimonides’ view on motives as being not in line with Torah and that it originates in the thoughts of non-Jewish philosophers such as Aristotle. They taught that one must do good for the sake of good. Abrabanel argues that their premise was a rejection of divine reward and punishment. As Jews who believe in reward and punishment we find rewards that are not directly related to the act that is being rewarded. It is also not the case that everything Torah forbids is inherently disgusting as can be seen from the teaching that one should not say ‘I will not eat pork because I detest it’ but rather say ‘I cannot eat it because God has forbidden it’[xi]. In other words, avoiding pork is not an essential truth, it is a subjective virtue based on God’s command[xii]. He also cites a proof from the Talmud that a person who vows to give a sum to charity on condition that his sick son will recover is considered righteous[xiii].

Conclusion

In spite of Abrabanel’s objections, the ideal of serving God for its own sake is accepted as an important standard of Jewish worship. This is particularly so in Chasidic teachings which emphasise love of God and awe or fear of disappointing God as key motivations for worship.  Still, even as we aspire toward the ideal, reward and punishment might be a useful fall-back position. Regardless of the motive, my challenge at this holy time of year is to fulfil the prediction that “you will return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and you will listen to His voice according to all that I am commanding you this day[xiv]. May next year be one of reward, truth, peace, justice, dignity and blessings for all humanity.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 29:17-27

[ii] Deuteronomy 30:8-9

[iii] Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishna Sanhedrin,

[iv] Deuteronomy 31:17

[v] Bchor Shor and others

[vi] Pirkey Avot, the Ethic of the Fathers 1:3

[vii] Meiri, Beis Habechira commentary to Pirkey Avot

[viii] Maimonides, Laws of Repentance, chapter 10 law 2

[ix] Maimonides, Laws of Repentance, chapter 10 law 1

[x] 1437- 1508 lived in Lisbon, Naples, Venice

[xi] Sifre 20, cited in Abrabanel on Pirkey Avot, as compiled and translated by Chill (1991)

[xii] Abrabanel on Pirkey Avot, as compiled and translated by Abraham Chill, A. (1991) Sepher Hermon Press NY p30-35

[xiii] Talmud Pesachim 8a

[xiv] Deuteronomy 30:2

Dissent, Tolerance and limits- Korach 2011

Freedom to disagree is prized above many things. We admire the maverick. In an Inter-Faith context, superficial agreement drives some of us crazy. But it is more than that, we are all too aware of the dangers of “Group Think”, and rightly admire those who stand up for what they believe in. We are horrified by the suppression of dissent in places like Syria. The Torah story of the violent deaths of a dissenting group lead by Korach presents obvious challenges for the modern reader. Are there legitimate limits to our tolerance for dissent?

Context

In reading the story of Korach, we are not called today to execute heretics [1]. Jewish law courts have lost the authority for capital punishment some 2000 years ago. In the story of Korach the punishment is meted out by God alone [2], I would hope that people don’t assume that they could take the place of God and decide who today’s Korachs are that must be destroyed. Instead, we are invited to consider possible meanings of the historical and conceptual Korach. One lesson can be related to appropriate and inappropriate disagreement and leadership, the nature of conflict, and confusion between what Jews aspire to be and where we are at in reality.

Limits of Tolerance

While there are some who will fight for the right of anyone to say anything, I am much more inclined to support a rebel who happens to be right, or at least not horribly wrong. The freedom of expression of an artist who wants to display images of nude children doesn’t really worry me. On the other hand, I support the right of Muslim women to cover their faces. My different stances are based on the fact that I think the artist is very wrong, but veiling woman’s faces is merely a choice that doesn’t resonate for me. Insurgents in Libya fighting Gaddafi have my support while insurgents fighting for a thuggish theocracy in Afghanistan don’t, because I think the Taliban are wrong.

If we are not absolute in our defence of freedom of expression and dissent, then the principle has been established: some things can be censored, now the question is only how to decide on what can or cannot be censored. In the traditional Torah perspective, good and right is defined by compliance with God’s will, which of course still doesn’t sit well with some of us (might even sound Talibanesque) but we need to read Torah within its own frame of reference.

Disagree, For God’s sake! [3]

Jews are proud of a tradition of robust argument and questioning. This is expressed in the Talmudic story [4] about the sage Rabbi Jochanan right after the death of his brother in law and study partner, Resh Lakish. “The sages said, who should go to settle his mind? Let Rabbi Elazar Ben Pedat who is sharp in his learning. He went and sat before him. Every thing that Rabbi Jochanan said, (Rabbi Elazar) said "there is a Mishnah that supports you”! But instead of Rabbi Jochanan being happy with this, he cried out bitterly, “are you like the son of Lakisha?! The son of Lakisha, when I said something he would ask me 24 questions and I would give him 24 answers and therefore the learning would be broadened, but you tell me a ‘Mishnah that will support you?!” Don’t I know that I am saying something right! He [Rabbi Jochanan] walked and tore his clothes and cried, saying where are ‘you son of Lakisha?!, where are you son of Lakisha?! and he screamed until he lost his mind [5]. Yet, the same tradition that so values argument, has no tolerance for Korach. Why?

Motives and Honesty

Disagreement is welcomed when it is for “God’s Sake” [6]. Allowing disagreement is useful in the quest for understanding within or between faith communities as long as it is driven by pure motives, as opposed to the case of Korach and his assembly. There are various motives suggested in our traditions for Korach's rebellion, none of them idealistic. These motives include Korach’s resentment about being passed over for a leadership position [7]. Korach's father’s name Yitzhar, which means oil, is linked to his idea that he should rise above others just as oil rises to the top when mixed with other liquids [8]. Others in Korach's camp had their own personal agendas [9]. Yet, in spite of Korach’s desire to replace Aaron in his elevated position, he pretends that he is seeking equality. Korach cries out to Moses and Aaron that “all of the congregation, they are all holy, and God is among them, and why do you raise yourselves above the congregation of God” [10].

Fighting Fair

There are ethical rules for disagreeing. In addition to misrepresenting the purpose of their argument, there is broader dishonesty, chutzpah [11] and sheer nastiness. When Moses sends a messenger to Korach’s co-conspirators Dathan and Aviram calling them to come and speak with him they refuse to appear [12], implying their disregard for his authority [13]. They not only point out the truth that Moses had not brought them to the promised land flowing with milk and honey, but they brazenly and mockingly [14] paint a picture of their exodus from Egypt as Moses having taken the Israelites "from a land of milk and honey" [15]. The rebellion even cast Moses as a potential adulterer, with Jews warning their wives against being alone with him [16]. When Moses hears this he falls on his face out of shame [17]. 

Permitted and Forbidden questioning

I think that what was more important than the way in which Korah carried out the controversy was the substance of the disagreement itself. Judaism encourages questions within the constraints of acceptance of Torah being the word of God, but not questioning its basic premise. We can see that this was part of Korach’s argument from Moses’ statement, “with this you will know that God has sent me to do all these deeds, that is was not from my heart [18]”. “These deeds” refers to prophecy. We have Korach exclaiming; “there is no Torah from heaven, Moses is not a prophet, and Aaron is no high priest! [19]” From this perspective, the legitimacy of Judaism was at stake in this argument. The shutting down of Korach's rebellion can still be argued to be encouraging stifling freedom of conscience, although conveniently in the case of Korach it was more opportunism than conscience. Still the question of how Judaism views freedom of conscience itself is one that I have not yet been able to answer. 

Living with questions is part of the deal for a person of faith. It has been said that for the unbeliever there are really no (valid religious) questions, because nothing really has to make sense if there is no God, but the believer has many questions, but not always answers.

Confusion between Aspiration and Reality

The failure to acknowledge the ambiguous reality of the believer is one of the unfortunate mistakes religious movements make. This often takes the form of talking about their aspirations as if this was their reality. “In Lubavitch, we don’t hate”, said one Rabbi denying our human failure to control our baser emotions by confusing reality with our aspiration to love others.

Korach’s statement that every Jew is holy, interprets our mission to seek holiness as if it were a given privilege [20]. Korach’s view seems to be based on selectively quoting God’s statement “you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation [21]”. He neglects the implied conditionality of achieving holiness reflected in God’s preceding statement “and now if you will listen to my voice, and you will keep my covenant, you will be for me a treasure from among all the nations... [22]. Our becoming a holy nation is linked [23] to the command to “Be Holy”[24], it is a choice that is offered to us [25]. Korach does not recognise the choice, insisting that everyone is automatically holy.

Limits of Equality

This misunderstanding of reality links nicely with Korach’s argument to do away with any religious leadership and have absolute equality. If we have all arrived at our spiritual destination then we don’t need a leader to lead us in our quest to achieve it. His anti-leadership view is said to have been expressed by his wrapping himself in a garment that was made of completely blue thread. He approached Moses with Chutzpah [26] and asked him if this garment requires Tzitzit? (Threads on its four corners, one of which must be blue [27]) Moses replied that it did. Korach ridiculed Moses, if a garment that is completely blue cannot absolve itself of this obligation, yet four threads acquit it [28]! Clearly our tradition rejects Korach’s argument, there are people who have a role to lead and others to follow, if we are to follow the example of the great we need to recognise them as such [29].

Taking Sides

As if often the case with controversy, there can be no sitting on the fence. The community is responsible for the actions of individuals within it, if the individual is connected to the community and identified with it…just as Korach and his band separated themselves from the rest of the congregation so should the congregation actively disassociate themselves from Korach [30]. Their standing near Korach implied that they condoned their actions. They had to show they did not share their views by keeping away [31]. 

The Nature of Conflict

A favourite lesson for me is in the metaphoric meaning of the particular form of Korach’s death, being swallowed up by the earth [32]. In communal conflicts and disputes, it is often the case that those involved in the fighting are so consumed by it, obsess over it and cannot think of anything else that their whole existence is metaphorically “swallowed up” by the conflict [33].   

Conclusion

The portion of Korach raises many questions, some left unanswered. It illustrates the ugliness of controversy when driven by less than noble motives. It challenges us to submit to faith in Moses and God, to cancel our will for His will [34] and to subdue the impulse to question everything. This will serve the purpose of preserving the larger project of Judaism, ethical monotheism and repairing the world with the kingdom of God.

---

[1] In earlier times, one could be executed for acting on unacceptable beliefs, such as idol worship and even a sage who had a different opinion about ritual can be executed if he acts on his dissenting views against the decision reached by the Sanhedrin (Maimonedes Laws of Mamrim 1:1-2)

[2] This is not to suggest that Capital punishment was not carried out by people for religious offences, in fact we recently  read about the collector of wood on the Sabbath who was executed by the whole community (Numbers 15:36), I am simply trying to make sense of the story of Korach.

[3] I love this play on words, from   http://www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk/en/resources/papers/disagree-weiss

[4] Talmud Bava Metzia 84a, discussed in Amsel, N, (1996) the Jewish Encyclopaedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, chapter 30, Individuality and Conformity,  Jason Aronson pub. New Jersey,  p.121

[5] As explained in Rashi

[6] Pirkey Avot 5:17

[7] Midrash Tanchuma 1, Rashi

[8] Midrash Bamidbar Rabba 18:15, Pirush Harosh in Otzar Mefarshei Hapshat,

[9] Yearot Dvash, quoted in Torah Gems, Greenberg, A,Y, (1992) p.77 makes the point that when the Mishna states “which dispute is not for the sake of heaven, that was the dispute of Korach and his congregation”, it does not say the dispute between Korach and Moses, because within the camp of Korach they had their own disputes.

[10] Numbers 16:3

[11] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel on Number 16:2

[12] Numbers 16:12

[13] Bchor Shor

[14] Leibowitz, N, Studies in Bamidbar Numbers, p. 207, following the approach of Akedat Yitzchak

[15] Numbers 16:13

[16] Talmud Sanhedrin 110a, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, also implied in “all are holy”, but you are not (Mishknot Yaakov)

[17] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel on Numbers 16:4. Bchor Shor, Chizkuni

[18] Numbers 16:24

[19] Jerusalem Talmud 10:1

[20] Leibowitz, N, Studies in Bamidbar Numbers, p. 183

[21] Exodus 19:6

[22] Exodus 19:5

[23] Ramban on Exodus 19:5

[24] Leviticus 19:2

[25] Baal Haturim on Exodus 19:5, We are told that if the Jews had taken the choice to be holy “they would live forever, this was indeed God’s intention, if not for their corrupting their ways with the calf…( Seforno on Exodus 19:5)

[26] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel on Number 16:2

[27] Numbers 15:38

[28] Old Midrash Tanchuma

[29] http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/698071/jewish/Quality-of-Sobriety-Korach.htm

[30] Akedat Yitzchak

[31] Malbim, Taam Vdaat

[32] Numbers 16:32

[33] The Chafetz Chayim,  alternatively, their rejection of leadership relates to the idea that without government people would swallow each other alive (R. Bchai)

[34] Pirkey Avot 2:4

Giving; Generosity, Glory, Guilt, Perpetuating inequality?

Giving; Generosity, Glory, Guilt, Perpetuating inequality?

On a Friday afternoon, in the mid 80’s,
a man approached me on 7^th Avenue
in Manhattan,

“Can you help me?” he asked.

I thought he was looking for directions.

He had intense dark eyes, he continued.

I AM homeless, I eat out of garbage can, and I have not eaten anything today.

I was a teenager, this was New York with homeless people everywhere. I handed him some change.

“I will say a brachah” (Hebrew for blessing made before eating food)

“I will not carry the food I buy in the street on the Sabbath”

Whoa, I thought, this guy is Jewish just like me, and he is hungry and I am giving him a bit of change?

I reached into my pocket and gave him all my change.

Then I realized that I had someone else’s dollars bills in my see-through white shirt pocket.

“I have more money on me, but it is not mine”, I said.

His intense dark eyes are looking at me.

He says, “I hope you are not lying.

You are not lying. Nothing is anyone’s it all belongs to God.”

“I hope you God finds you a home”, I offered lamely.

“I have a home, God earth!”

This story cuts to the essence of some of the dilemmas related to giving. While charity begins at home and within communities[1] it must not stop there. Being kind only to our own is not seen as Kosher[2]. We sustain the poor of the idol worshipers with the poor of Israel[3]. Questions can also be asked about attitudes about giving, and the results for recipients.  

Motives for Teruma (contribution)

“And they will take to me, a contribution, from each man whose heart is moved in generosity, you shall take my contribution[4]”. This particular case of giving was to contribute to the construction of a temporary temple for the Israelites in the desert.

In this case, giving must be done willingly and it should not be forced[5]. “Not even coercion with words, a person was not to be pressured to give more than their heart moved them to contribute”[6]. It is suggested that it was the generosity of the heart, rather than the physical building that brought God’s presence into the tabernacle[7].

In other situations, the community did force people to give to the poor[8]. Giving that is a sacrifice, rather than out of generosity, or ‘giving till it hurts’ might be another ideal, following the principle that “According to the pain is the reward”[9]. 

On one level the motives should not matter.

The very generous and hospitable Chasid says to the Rebbe (Master)

“I am not sure about the charity I give or having poor people around my table, because I don’t know if I am doing it for honor, or with (pure motives) truth”.

The Rebbe responds, the poor people enjoy the benefits, with complete truth!

While glory seeking by the giver matters less than the benefits to the poor, the equation changes if the motive interferes with addressing the needs of the poor.

The End of Charity

Nic Frances, a former CEO of a major charity, suggests that charity is often driven by guilt or a desire to feel good about ourselves but actually perpetuates poverty.  People feel satisfied to throw the crumbs from the rich man's table to the poor and therefore avoid thinking about the cost to society of keeping people poor[10]. Personally, as the leader of a non-profit responsible for fund-raising I would like to think he is wrong. That is part of his argument too, that we in the non-profit sector a doing well out of poverty and misery. Ouch.

Frances makes a complex argument and at the risk of oversimplifying, he is essentially proposing that social enterprises rather than charity should tackle poverty through the market with help from government legislation to make it profitable.

Certainly providing someone with a job is better than giving them a handout[11]. A man would prefer one measure of his own (produce) than nine of his friend[12]. Frances illustrates his vision with his success in the UK in transforming a charity that had been taking people's old furniture and stained mattresses and giving them to the poor.  It moved to a business model that sold new beds at a discount to the poor, reconditioned electronics and provided jobs to previously unemployed people.  

Markets are driven by profit, while governments or creativity occasionally manipulate the market to make a profit out of helping people, I wonder if it can work on a large scale.

Fixing “Charity”

Frances argues that charity has not solved the problem of poverty and has therefore been discredited. His ideal of poverty eradication is noble, but perhaps “the poor shall never cease from the land[13]”. In which case the better question is what is best way to “open, you must open your hand to your brother, to your poor and needy in your land?[14]”

The word charity is often used to describe an act of benevolence that makes the giver feel virtuous in doing more than his fair share. Torah's word for giving to the poor is Tzedaka, which means justice. Giving to the poor is just passing on what is rightfully his[15].   

Whose Money?

The verb in Exodus (above) relating to “my contributions” is “take” rather than “give”. This is consistent with the belief articulated by the

7^th Avenue

man that everything belongs to God. “Give Him, from that which is his, because you and yours is His[16]”. “Giving”, is actually taking what God entrusted to us for a particular purpose and delivering it. 

Supporting Scholars and the arts

Can it be that God gave rich people money so they can patron the arts? I see similarities between the support given to Torah scholars and artists. Artists civilize society and sometimes challenge it. Torah scholars contribute to the holiness of their communities (although this raises the issue of large scale avoidance of jobs in favour of study)[17]. The Holy Ark containing the tablets from Sinai was carried with poles, the Torah forbids the removal of the poles[18]. The poles symbolize those who financially support Torah study[19]. That the poles must not be removed from the ark represents the importance of this support[20].

Conclusion

Charity begins at home, but must not end there. Motives matter. Results matter more. Giving to the poor can be thought of as acting as God’s messenger. I hope 7^th Avenue guy is ok, may the merit of your reading this brings blessings to him wherever he is on God’s earth.

---

[1] Talmud, Bava Metzia 71a, “the poor of your own city, (and community) come before others”

[2] The stork, a non-Kosher bird is called Chadidah, which means kind. A moral explanation for why such a benevolent creature is unfit, is that it is only kind with it’s own “friends”, or it’s own kind.

[3] Mishnah Gittin 5.8; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 254, 256, cited in http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Jews_and_Non-Jews/Legal_Issues/Non-Jew_in_Jewish_Law.shtml

[4] Exodus 25:2

[5] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, on Exodus 25:2,  Lekach Tov, quoted in Torah Shelaima, Teruma p.6

[6]  Magid Meisharim, also quoted in Torah Shelaima, Teruma p.6, note 24

[7] Kli Chemda, parshat Truma, Torah Shelaima ibid

[8] Talmud, Kesuvot 59b

[9] Pirkey Avot, 5:21

[10] Frances, Nic, (2008) The End of Charity, Allen & Unwin, Sydney

[11] Mimonedes, eight levels of Tzedakah, the highest is giving someone a job

[12] Talmud Bava Metziah, Perek Elu Metziot

[13] Deuteronomy 15:11

[14] Deuteronomy ibid

[15] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi M.M. Schneerson, Likutei Sichos.

[16] Pirkey Avot 3:7, it continues, with a quote from King David, for from you is everything, and from Your hand, we have given you (Chronicles I, 29:14)

[17] Shunning work to study and expecting to be supported by the governments, community or ones wife is another matter. Among other things, it seems to default on the commitment in the Ketuba/marriage contract “and I will work and provide for you…” It is at odds with many pro-work traditions in Judaism. This issue is dealt with to a limited degree in
“ http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com/2011/01/faith-food-flood-money.html ” this article is about the merits of the giver in supporting the study of Torah.

[18] Exodus 25:15

[19] Midrash Lekach Tov, quoted in Torah Shelaima

[20] Nachshoni, Y, (1988) Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Teruma p530, Artscroll, Brooklyn, New York, based on earlier sources