Linking religion to misbehavior: Abuse & shunning secular authorities - Mishpatim

As I sit down to write this, I am afraid of upsetting people, but also of doing the wrong thing. I have been listening to opposing arguments relating to cultural and religious diversity and seeing how each is true for the people who hold them. A binary paradigm would demand that I simply take one side and ignore the other. I don’t think a binary approach is working. Despite all the good intentions of advocates we are seeing the triumph of “Trumpism”[i], rising anti migrant sentiment in Europe and the Australian High Court ruling that allows asylum seeker families, including children, to be returned to Nauru[ii].  On the other hand, attempts at acknowledging the fears people have of the “other”, such as an article I wrote for an Australian tabloid, The Daily Telegraph, have met with a backlash. Along with positive feedback, there was a torrent of criticism ranging from thoughtful and partly justified, to defamatory. I apologised sincerely and got it taken down, but there are some principles worth considering regarding thinking and talking about out-groups.

Discriminatory talk is a serious moral hazard. The pursuit of justice must start with protecting those with less power from those with more power[iii]. Laws concerning freeing slaves come first[iv] in a series of practical laws in our weekly reading.  To deprive people of freedom is like “murdering them while they are still alive[v]”.  Yet, there are limits on supporting the vulnerable. We are instructed not to glorify the poor person in his fight[vi]. Justice for the vulnerable does not mean that the vulnerable can do no wrong.  Censoring discussion about tensions between members of minorities and majority groups is a well-intentioned but ultimately destructive posture.

A student leader at a rural retreat, a girl in year 11, told her peers and my team who were running the session that the best strategy for dealing with tensions between groups is just to “pretend it is not happening”. However, “pretending” will often fail. Anti-racism literature insists that “Participants must feel ‘safe’ to speak honestly and frankly, including talking about negative experiences. If people feel under attack and think they will be labelled as racist, they are less likely to listen or engage”[vii]. One effective conflict resolution strategy is referred to as adopting the “and stance” which seeks to understand both sides of a dispute because both stories matter. Acknowledging the others’ stories can make it easier for them to add your perspective to theirs[viii].

One critic of my approach, author Randa Abdel Fattah, questions the difference between saying race (of religion) has everything to do with these crimes, and saying it has something to do with it.  The answer for me is in the benefit and truth of the latter vs. the harm and falsehood of the former

An example of this is the way we should talk about the failure of some Australian Rabbis to turn to Secular authorities in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.  It is wrong to say that the Jewishness of the Rabbis was to blame for their behaviour. This is simply not true as we can see that other Jews, including religious Jews, have trusted secular authorities to deal with these problems.  Blaming Judaism falsely taints a community with the wrongful deeds of some people and institutions.

Yet it would be reasonable, and not anti-Semitic, to look beyond the question of assigning blame, and instead explore whether the Jewish faith was a “contributing factor”[ix] in these terrible choices. People and their decisions are multi-faceted and multi-determined.  Although there were factors affecting individual Rabbis’ choices other than faith, such as concern about institutional reputation, personal loyalties, poor personal judgement that also contributed, these do not negate the validity of discussing the role of faith as one factor among others.

One part of the puzzle is the teaching that demands that Jews go to a religious court rather than a secular court even if there is no concern about the specifics of their laws[x]. Going before a court of “the worshipers of stars and constellations” is seen as first denying G-d and then denying the Torah[xi]. But the practical application of religion is often more complicated. Despite this preference for a religious court called a Beit-Din, if a Jew refuses to attend a Beit-Din, one can get dispensation to go to a secular court. Similarly if a litigant did appear before Jewish court but then refused to abide by the judgement one is permitted to turn to non-Jewish authorities to force him/her to do what the Beit-Din ruled[xii]. This demonstrates a hierarchy of imperatives. The preference for a Jewish court is of lesser imperative than justice.  This approach of course should have prevailed in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.  Further questions can be asked about other contributing religious factors such as the emphasis on respect for authority and the lack of sex education in some religious schools[xiii].

The other advantage to seeing faith as a factor is that it means one can think about how faith could be harnessed to influence people to make the right choices.  It would be perfectly reasonable to call on Rabbis like me to try to use religious arguments to persuade a recalcitrant colleague to fall into line and report suspected abusers to police. In fact this is exactly what was vigorously attempted by senior colleagues in Australia years before this scandal became public, but to our great shame, not early enough to protect the vulnerable, and not strongly enough to persuade absolutely everyone completely.  

We need to move beyond the binary approaches where conflicts are attributed entirely to culture and religion or not at all linked and completely irrelevant. We need to move away from accusing those who want to explore faith as a contributing factor of being prejudiced. There is a complexity in the human spirit and complexity when humans with varied needs and assumptions meet in a rapidly changing world.  I don’t believe there are whole cultures or faiths that are incompatible with my own. It is just that mutual curiosity and effort are required for fostering understanding and coexistence.  

---

[i] Beinart, P. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/rubios-surge-is-a-triumph-for-trumpism/459339/ Trump may have lost in Iowa but Trumpism won. The fact that the moderate in the GOP race is now peddling a version of The Donald’s message testifies to how profound his effect has been. …In the final weeks before Iowa, Rubio grew markedly more anti-immigration…

[ii] http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/02/04/un-warns-australia-on-nauru-kids-2.html#sthash.gAwOinqQ.dpuf

[iii] Ibn Ezra commentary to Exodus 22:20

[iv] Exodus 21:2, Abarbanel, p. 339, first paragraph argues that despite the principle of “there is no Mukdam or Me’Uchar in Torah” eg. not everything is chronological, and that we cannot read too much into things on the basis of proximity (View of Rabbi Yehuda in Berachos 21b), still it is implausible that there would not be significance in the order of elements within a passage or section.

[v] Abarbanel, p. 340, last paragraph

[vi] Exodus 23:3

[vii] 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

[viii] Stone, D. Patton, B, Heen, S. 1999. Difficult Conversations. Penguin Books.

[ix] Stone, D. Patton, B, Heen, S. 1999. Difficult Conversations. Penguin Books.

[x] Talmud Gittin 88b, cited in TS p9, 28

[xi] Midrash Tanchuma, cited in Torah Shlaima p.9, note 28

[xii] Mechilta, Nezikin 1, cited in Chizkuni p. 261

[xiii] http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/mishpatim-judaism-abhors-child-abuse

Facts, Prejudice & Pessimism (Pharaoh & Politicians)

"But it’s true!”, cry out those accused of racism. It seems that to avoid prejudice, we are expected to pretend certain facts are not there. Pessimists would make a similar truth argument against optimism. Martin Seligman convincingly argues in Learned Optimism[1] that we do not need to ignore the evidence to be optimistic, rather we can choose among alternative honest explanations of all the “facts”. This approach can also work with prejudice. In one of the earliest records of prejudice, against the Hebrews in ancient Egypt, some of these issues play out. The key idea in this article is that we can be truthful and still beat prejudice and pessimism by focusing, when appropriate, on positive aspects of the truth, while at other times we can choose to face up to the negatives.

Head in the sand?

Recently, Australian parliamentarian Teresa Gambaro suggested that migrants be taught about using deodorant and waiting in a que, and Rick Santorum, an American presidential candidate referred to blacks on welfare[2]. Gambaro unreservedly apologised and said she was taken out of context, while Santorum denies he said the word black. I wonder about the facts, is there a real deodorant and que problem? NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous, blasted Mr. Santorum, “In Iowa for example, only nine percent of food stamp recipients are black, while eighty-four percent of recipients are white”. Jealous ignores the fact that there are far more whites than blacks in Iowa (91% white to nearly 3% black[3]). It seems that we are all supposed to be nice and just pretend that this obvious hole in the argument is just not there. I do not think either statement as reported, was appropriate, but why not? 

Realists in Ancient Egypt?

According to the Torah’s account of “social integration” in ancient Egypt, the truth did not look good. The Hebrews were not going to fit in, it did not matter how long they were in the country they could still be described as those “coming to Egypt[4]” in the present tense, as if they always just arriving[5]. They did not change their language or their names[6]; “They did not call Reuben, Rufus, nor did they call Shimon, Lulini[7]”. In contrast to the sexually liberated Egyptians, they had very conservative attitudes to women; they would not even look at each other’s wives[8]. Shepherding, a common occupation of the migrants, was an abomination to Egyptians[9].

They were not a marginal group. These outsiders had already managed to occupy the second highest office in the land, secure the best agricultural land[10] and they were rich[11]. Their birth-rate was as high[12] as that of rodents[13] to the point where the land was filled with them[14]. It was like an infestation of reeds[15]. Whenever an Egyptian went to get some entertainment they found the theatres were full of them[16]. These internationalists could also migrate out of the land[17] of Egypt just at the moment when their labour was needed most[18]. Was it unreasonable for the Egyptians to be concerned and pessimistic about those people? 

 

Realist and pessimist

Until this week, I would have described myself as a realist rather than an optimist or pessimist. I do not agree with the idea that if you think positive thoughts about something you want, “the universe” or God for that matter will give it to you. There is evidence that pessimists are generally been better at discerning reality than optimists[19], at least when thinking about them calmly. On the other hand, pessimists are more likely to fail to achieve their goals, feel depressed and have poorer health[20].

I did a test to measure my degree of optimism and pessimism, particularly the degree to which I think of both good and bad events as being permanent, pervasive and personal. I found that in some ways I think like an unrealistic pessimist. With negative events, I have been likely to think of them as reflective of what happens generally (permanent), as them being part of a broader pattern rather than isolated to that particular issue (pervasive) and I tend to take responsibility for it (personal). With positive events, I am more likely to think of it as a fluke or a lucky break (neither permanent nor personal) and more specific to that issue rather than thinking of it in a broader sense (not pervasive). I was not being consistent or logical and that alternative explanations could be even more realistic so I was free to choose those[21].

Methods for honest positive living

In some cases, our negative perception is backed up by a set of facts. With those situations, it depends on the context and the timing. If a lot is at stake, we might do well to take a pessimistic view about the risks, rather than just hope it will all take care of itself. If we are in a position to take action and deal with it, we can replace our worry with determination to address the problem[22]. If we are worrying about them when we are in middle of something else, it would be sensible to tell ourselves that this not the time for thinking about this, and actually schedule an alternative time to deal with it[23].

Other than dealing or delaying dealing with the problem itself, Selikman’s main strategy for dealing with pessimistic beliefs is disputation with oneself, which can still be relevant in spite of a negative set of facts. Disputation has four main components, i) evidence, ii) alternatives, iii) implications and iv) usefulness. For example, it is late at night, I am feeling washed out and I notice that I am doing less than my fair share of the house work, so I think I am lousy person and feel sadder still. I can challenge the idea that I am a lousy person with evidence; “no I am not a selfish person there are other times when I do pull my weight or act altruistically, although I can do better in doing my fair share of house work”. When the evidence is against an optimistic view, I can still question the usefulness of a negative view, consider its implications and look for alternative ways of explaining the event. Eg. seeing myself as a lousy person will not motivate me to do anything about it, like the Chasidic saying “to be depressed is no a sin, but the harm it can cause, no sin can cause[24]”. It is more useful to think of my selfish act as a wrong choice, which I can make differently next time.

Application to Prejudice – then and now

There is a clear application of these types of arguments to prejudice, especially the usefulness and implications arguments as well as the possibility of change. The ancient Egyptians had their negative facts, but in a remarkable midrash, Pharaoh first tells his people they would be crazy to act against the nation that produced Joseph who saved them. They responded by deposing him for three months. He then agreed to see it their way[25], so he was reinstated as if he was a new king[26] and became the fear monger in chief. Their conservative family life could be seen as an asset, people in stable relationships are likely to be less distracted and more productive at work. Their abundant children and wealth could be seen as opportunities for Egyptian business, the Hebrews were not shopping on-line! In fact our sages say that the land was blessed because of the Hebrews[27].   

Mr. Santorum is not factually wrong when he refers to blacks on welfare, nor can one argue with his ethical point about wanting to replace welfare with work[28]. The problem is the implication of his statement; it reinforces a negative image of blacks. A more useful alternative would be to talk about people on welfare generally and as Mr. Jealous pointed out the total number of whites in this predicament is greater than that of blacks. If the context was different, if it was a conference about the welfare of blacks, that statement would have greater justification. Similarly, I was involved in a work situation where someone who happened to be a migrant had a problem with hygiene, if this was found to be a broader problem than addressing this in a focused, tactful way is appropriate. The way it came across in the media, it reinforced some prejudices about smelly foreigners[29].  

The Torah prohibits speaking about the faults of others unless it is for a legitimate purpose[30], eg. providing accurate information about a prospective marriage partner or to deal with a crime. It even avoids denigrating anything, except where this is needed for a purpose[31]. If we are convinced of a fault in another group and we can do something practical about it then we should, otherwise we need to consider additional evidence about whether it is as pervasive, permanent, or essential to people as it seems. Not everything that is true is worth saying. We also need to be mindful of the implications of what we might say and seek the most useful way to talk about it. Often it is optimistic.

  

When Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Beditchev saw a wagon-driver, wearing tallit and tefillin (holy prayer objects, normally only worn during prayer and treated with respect) whilst oiling the wheels of his wagon, Reb Levi Yitzchak exclaimed, “What a holy people is Israel! Even when they oil the wheels of their wagons, they are praying![32]”

---

[1]     Seligman, M, E, P, (1990), Learned Optimism, Random House, Australia

[2]     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxBiyb3gR3k&feature=related

[3]     http://www.drudge.com/news/152110/naacp-calls-santorum-outrageous

[4]     Exodus 1:1

[5]     Rabbi YY Tronk of Kutno, cited in Greenberg, A. Y.,  (1992), Torah Gems, Y. Orenstein Yavneh Publishing, Tel Aviv

[6]     Mechilta Mesechta Pesachim Bo 5

[7]     Shir Hashirim Rabba, cited in Torah Shlaima, Shemot, p 9, note that the rejected names were latin, which was relevant to the times in which this was written

[8]     Yelamdenu

[9]     Genesis 46:34

[10]    Genesis 47:6

[11]    Lekach Tov

[12]    Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei 9 ,states that there are some Rabbis who state that they were giving birth twins while others say they were having sextuplets

[13]    Midrash quoted in Rabbenu Bchai, and Daat Zekainim Mibaalei Hatosafot, cited in Torah Shlaima, Shemot, p 15

[14]    Exodus 1:7

[15]    Midrash Tanchuma Shemot 5 eg. bamboo is considered a weed in Australia, we have some growing on the side of our driveway and we have seen them grow and spread very quickly).

[16]    Old Midrash Tanchuma Shemot 5

[17]    Exodus 1:10

[18]    Bchor Shor

[19]   Seligman, p.109-111

[20]   Seligman

[21]   Seligman addresses the question about the need for taking personal responsibility, which is a strength. In some situations it is the right way to think about a problem so that we can solve it. In other situations, one can take a disproportionate amount of responsibility for things that are not entirely under our own control, in such cases one cannot correct the problem and instead it is just demoralising and depressing. A variation of this dilemma is discuss in Tanya, if I see myself as wicked I will become depressed, but if I am happy despite seeing myself as wicked then I will become callous  or irresponsible (Rabbi Schenur Zalman of Liadi, chapter 1).

[22] Tanya, Rabbi Schenur Zalman of Liadi, chapter 31,

[23]  Tanya, chapter 26, Seligman p. 218

[24]  R. Shlomo of Karlin, http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/the-chassidic-approach-to-joy/02.htm same statement with different wording,

[25]   Midrash, Shemot Rabba 1:9, Midrash Tanchuma 5

[26]  Exodus 1:8, and there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph

[27]  Midrash Chefetz, from a manuscript cited in Torah Shlaima, p.18

[28]  Mimonedes’ highest level of charity is to help someone get on to their own feet.

[29]  Professor, Andrew Jakubowicz http://www.smh.com.au/national/truss-raps-gambaro-for-migrant-hygiene-remark-20120110-1ptjs.html

[30] Hilchot Lashon Hara, sefer Chafetz Chaim, http://www.torah.org/learning/halashon/chapter10.html

[31]  The Lubavitcher Rebbe

[32] http://www.oztorah.com/2008/10/noah-was-a-righteous-man-noach/ with some variation in details reflecting the way the story was told to me 

Degradation & Grime, Abundance & “Good Breeding”

How do we respond when confronted with the impact of degradation on people? Political correctness seems to demand that because people are of a minority we must never speak about their faults, which can't be right. On the other hand those of us who are privileged can be judgmental and patronizing.

I reflect on my reaction to a group of Indigenous people I saw in Todd Mall, in the center of Alice Springs (Australia), the first time I met Indigenous people outside a “Westernized” situation. Their eyes were blank, they seemed completely zoned out, their clothes dirty and shabby, they appeared to be wandering around aimlessly. I could not help looking down at these degraded people. I did not think, 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

I was reminded of this experience recently while reading Mark Twain's very disparaging, even racist comments about the “Goshoot Indians"ⁱ. I now think I should have thought about the effects of privilege and degradation before I judged these people who I learned later were probably drunk.

3 ways of God relating to us, Abundance, Punishment,
and Covenant

This week, Jews read about two sets of circumstances in which God places the “children of Israel”. These involve either prosperity and peace or frightening calamities, and are primarily a lesson about reward and punishment and our relationship with God (this is reflected in the drawing of three ways of being with God, grace, retribution and unconditional covenant). On another level, the dramatic effects of these conditions on the moral, social, psychological and communal lives of the people are worth exploring.

Privilege and Plenty on the Macro level

If the Jews will “walk in my statutes and keep my commandments ⁱⁱ” great reward will follow. We are promised “rain in its time”ⁱⁱⁱ. These rains will result in an abundance of produce, and according to commentaries, also “clean and good air”, and will be good for the “wells and rivers and cause good health for bodies and fruits…people will not fall ill…^iv”.

Peace – Outer and Inner

We are also promised the blessing of peace, “Peace is equal to everything!”^v. “You will dwell securely in your land. I will give peace in the land, you will sleep and not be afraid”^vi.

Some see peace on an international level. “it is possible that it means peace in the world in general …he assures them that there will be peace in the entire world…the desire of God is for this, which is reflected in the 70 oxen offered as sacrifices on the festival corresponding to the 70 nations of the world…^vii

There is a strong trend among commentaries to interpret peace in social and psychological terms. “There will be peace between you; a man will not fight with his brother”^viii. Putting it another way, “God will plant peace and friendship in your hearts. As a result of the great harvests, people will not need to wander looking for work, instead they will feel deeply rooted in the land and automatically there will be no crime^ix.

The Torah verse “and a sword will not pass in your land^x” is interpreted to mean that “People will feel so secure that they will not be accustomed to use swords ^xi”. Or that the sense of security will result in the elimination of the ancient equivalent of airport security. There was a custom that no man was allowed to enter a land in time of war with their weapons, instead these would be confiscated and given to the guard and the city ruler, but during times of peace they will not go out to remove the swords “because each man will trust in his brother and believe (in each other)^xii”.

In this scenario, we live dignified, happy, peaceful, admirable lives, made far easier by privilege. I acknowledge that being happy if one is privileged is not effortless, too many people have everything and are still miserable. Still, for those of us who have so much, we must never think ourselves superior to those tested in the most difficult circumstances.

Calamity and its social and personal impact

“If will not listen and not do all these commandments”^xiii, we are warned that this will result in Illness, failed crops, drought, wild animals, desolate roads, pestilence, military defeat, destruction of cities and land, and exile.

On an internal level we are warned that the illness is such that it makes the eyes fail and the soul languish ^xiv, and the patient is “depressed and worried”^xv.

Famine will not only mean that many people will go without food, but that even if you get some food, “You will eat but not be satisfied ^xvi”. The famine will drive people to cannibalism, “you will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters you will eat”^xvii. “The image of God will be removed from their faces, and replaced with a face of fury, when their enemies see these “faces of fury” they will be filled with cruelty ^xviii”. You will run away, but there will be no one chasing you^xix. God will bring a weakness in their hearts, they will be pursued by the sound of a driven leaf, and they will flee as if from a sword ^xx. “Death will kill them from within^xxi”.

Turning on each other

Communally, things will go bad. “Even as exiles in the lands of their enemies they will be apart from each other, instead of of following the (usual) way of exiles to comfort one another...each seeks to push his friend with strong arm tactics, to knock him down from his (meager) situation. Like reeds that are hit twice, once by the wind, then as they knock each other...it is like honey, sweet in his mouth if he can find an opportunity to speak badly about his fellow”^xxii. “Enemies will arise from among your nation, because they are familiar with you they know where to search for your hidden (goods), and they are worse them enemies from (other) nations…they will steal your flesh and skin”^xxiii.

Importance of Choice

Heather Laughton is an impressive Indigenous Australian woman from Alice Springs. She believes one very important lesson young people in her community need to learn is that they have a choice about how they respond to their situation. One of the most passionate arguments in defence of people whose “place lead them to sin” combines this with the insistence that he has no excuse for his sins because he should have chosen to do what is right out of fear of God^xxiv. The exercise of this kind of choice by people in the worst situations and hardship is profoundly inspiring.

Unconditional Love

Perhaps one source of strength for people in hard times is stated at the lowest point of our reading. “And even when they will be in the lands of their enemies, I will not despise them, not will I abhor them to destroy them utterly, to break my covenant with them, because I am YkVk^xxv their God. I will remember the covenant…^xxvi This is unconditional love and an unbreakable bond.

The prophet Jeremiah said four things ^xxvii (about God’s relationship with the Jews), disgust, abhorrence, abandonment and forgetfulness. “Have you become disgusted with Judea, if with Zion your soul (finds) abhorrent ^xxviii” but he was answered by Moses “I will not despise them, not will I abhor them to destroy them utterly”, He also said “why forever will you forget us, abandon us for length of days ^xxix”, in this he was answered by Isaiah who brought God's message that “also these should be forgotten, but I will not forget you”^xxx.

Conclusion

For me living in great abundance in comparison with most of the earth's inhabitants, I must be grateful for what I have and recognize that ever I achieve has been done with profound advantages. When I look at those who subsist on crumbs and live with powerlessness, I must stand in awe of those who choose to live with dignity and standards, and avoid judgement of others for whom civility itself can become hard to preserve and crime hard to resist. For there, but for the grace of God, go I. Perhaps ^xxxi. 

Notes 

i Twain, Mark, in “Roughing it” chapter 19, p127-129. The name “Go-Shoot Indians” suggests that it might be a satire, although it might just be an ironic renaming of the “Gosiutes”. Regardless of his various intentions, what he writes is a view held by some about various groups living in poverty and diminished circumstances and struggling with social problems). Among other things he states “It was along in this wild country somewhere, and far from any habitation of white men, except the stage stations, that we came across the wretchedest type of mankind I have ever seen, up to this writing. I refer to the Goshoot Indians....inferior to all races of savages on our continent... small, lean, "scrawny" creatures; in complexion a dull black like the ordinary American Negro; their faces and hands bearing dirt which they had been hoarding and accumulating for months, years, and even generations, according to the age of the proprietor; a silent, sneaking, treacherous looking race; taking note of everything, covertly, like all the other "Noble Red Men" that we (do not) read about, and betraying no sign in their countenances; indolent, everlastingly patient and tireless, like all other Indians; prideless beggars--for if the beggar instinct were left out of an Indian he would not "go," any more than a clock without a pendulum; ...savages who, when asked if they have the common Indian belief in a Great Spirit show a something which almost amounts to emotion, thinking whiskey is referred to...It was curious to see how quickly the paint and tinsel fell away from him and left him treacherous, filthy and repulsive”. For more on this, see a general scholarly discussion at http://homepage.mac.com/jim_sullivan/writings/goshoots.html or a more focused critique at http://tselfoninternets.blogspot.com/2009/02/mark-twain-and-holmbergs-mistake.html,

ii Leviticus 26:3

iii Leviticus 26:4, Rashi points out that in addition to the agricultural benefits of the rain, it will also not even inconvenience people because it will fall on Friday nights when people are not usually outdoors

iv Ramban

v Rashi on Leviticus 26:6

vi Leviticus 26:5-6

vii Ohr Hachayim, I wondered how he reconciles his wonderful interpretation with the following verse “and you will pursue your enemies and they will fall before you by the sword” (Leviticus 26:7). He states in his commentary to the next verse, “what He assures (us) is that from the other nations not will do evil or destroy but not there will not be (harm and destruction) from Israel to (the) nations…you will pursue them and destroy them and in spite of this you will sit securely and in peace…they are called enemies, not because they come to lay siege to the holy city (of Jerusalem) because if this was the case, there is no security and there is no peace for its inhabitants, rather it calls them “enemies” because they are the enemies of God, the wicked of the nations, therefore they are called the enemies of God and are therefore also our enemies…” I will not attempt to explain this.

viii Ramban, and Ibn Ezra, Ramban goes on to state that animals will not miscarry or be barren

ix Hoffman, R. David Zwi, quoted in Nachshoni, Y, Studies in the Weekly Parsha Artscroll Publications, Jerusalem, p.873. Even the International understanding of peace of the Ohr Hachayim, has a psychological element as he states “when there are wars (anywhere) in the world, even those in living securely will tremble for the sounds of war .

x Leviticus 26:6

xi Haemek Davar

xii Pirush Yonatan, in the name of “my older brother, the Aluf, my master and teacher, Rabbi Naftali”.

xiii Leviticus 26:14-43

xiv Leviticus 26:16

xv Radak

xvi Leviticus 26:26

xvii Levticus 26:29

xviii “Shach” ( I don’t think it is the sifsei Chachomim as I was unable to find it), quoted in Greenbaum, N, Otzar Mefarshei Hapshat al Hatorah on Leviticus 26:17

xix Leviticus 26:17, see a wonderful piece on modern applications of this idea by Rabbi Zalman Posner,

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/477831/jewish/The-Tremulous-Heart.htm

xx Leviticus 26:36

xxi Sifsei Chachomim on 26:17

xxii Klei Yakar on Leviticus 26:36

xxiii Yalkut Bechukotai 673

xxiv Tanya 30, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liady

xxv Chasidic custom is to refer to the Tetgramaton as Yud Kay Vav Kay.

xxvi Leviticus 26:44-45

xxvii Eicha Rabba 5:20

xxviii Jeremia 14:19

xxix Lamentations 5:20

xxx Isaiah 49:15

xxxi I learned the idea of adding the word perhaps at the end of a thought from my colleague Fuzz Kitto