Showing posts with label Revenge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Revenge. Show all posts

Friday, August 3, 2012

Responsibility and inter-group relations verses I cannot really explain


Perseverance is needed for “Intercultural Understanding” a teacher said last week at a professional development day for teachers I lead in Queensland. The teacher was born in South America, grew up in Australia and is married to an Asian woman. She nodded knowingly.

In our Torah reading this week there are several verses that I cannot ignore, yet I have little of value or new to say about them.  One approach would be to simply ignore these or pretend they are not there. I think the responsible thing to do is acknowledge that these ideas exist within our sacred text even if I can’t find some happy synthesis with my own sense of ethics.  Instead, I offer some limited comments and invite readers to share their own thoughts about these.  Relating to some of these verses and more generally in our reading is the theme of responsibility.

Harsh Revenge
Despite the general prohibition against revenge[i], God instructs Moses to "Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites. Afterwards you will be gathered to your people[ii] (eg. Moses would die). This was in relation against a deliberate campaign by the nation of Midian in which they sent women to seduce Jewish men to morally corrupt them and also to persuade the men to worship idols. When they return from the battle Moses is angry at the commanders. “Moses said to them, "you allowed all the females to live! They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor (a form of Idol worship), resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord[iii].

The idea of going to war over men being seduced or persuaded to worship anything is jarring to people who value religious freedom, Moses’ angry outburst even more so. To modern sensibilities sexual activity between consenting adults is ok and to punish a woman for the choice of a man is deeply problematic.

Part of the context here is the weight the Bible puts on these things. Perhaps a modern equivalent would be if one nation deliberately sought to destroy another though a successful network of agents that turn citizens into drug addicts. Commentary explains that the women Moses complained about were recognised as having seduced this or that particular man[iv].  The bottom line for me is that this instruction was a once off in the distant past and I don’t think it has a direct literal message for our time. Instead I am interested in more allegorical messages these verses might contain.

Responsibility Messages in Midianite Mass Execution
If we can put aside the issues in previous paragraph there are two moral messages in this episode. The first relates to the link between Moses’ death and the Midianite mission. When Moses was first confronted by the “moral onslaught” of the Midianite women he fell apart and cried[v]. To correct his failure to act at that time God commanded him to deal with this “unfinished business” and only then would could he die[vi]. To me this is a strong message about stepping up and taking action when it is needed but difficult or showing leadership when the opportunity arises.

A second message is hinted at in the omission or mention of the sorcerer/prophet Balaam who gave advice that led to the seductions[vii]. When punishment is being discussed Balaam is mentioned prominently, seemingly bearing some of the blame for the whole episode. Yet, the role of Balaam is completely absent when the story first appears, and the balance of blame at least for the promiscuity is strongly placed on the Jewish men.  Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of the Moabites”. One of the foremost female Torah scholars, Nehama Liebowitz, explains that at the time of the sin the role of Balaam is irrelevant, the focus was and had to be on the poor choice of the Jewish men who could have resisted the temptation[viii].

Ethnic-Religious Cleansing
The second difficult issue is the insistence on removing the existing inhabitants of Canaan. “You shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their temples … But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle[ix]”. The research literature about racism talks about a “new racism” in which members of dominant groups argue for excluding members of minorities based on incompatibility between the two cultures. Often the differences are exaggerated and based on ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding.  Yet here the Torah seems to be legitimizing this very argument.  I could argue that again this an instruction for a specific time. Yet, the kind of argument the Torah puts forward here seems to still be influencing decisions today[x]. I would love to hear from others about this.

Extreme idea of moral responsibly of leaders
If someone kills a person by accident they are exiled to cities of refuge which protect them from revenge by relatives of the deceased and also serve as atonement for their deed. They are allowed to leave the city only when the high priest dies.

One explanation for the surprising link between the date of release and the death of the high priest relates to a very high standard of responsibility. The reason to keep the accidental killer in the city until that time is so that “they do not ridicule the high priest when they see the killer going outside the city of refuge and people would say “did you see this person who killed an innocent person and now goes out and comes among the people and the high priest does not take revenge against him, (assuming) this is something which he is responsible for. This is not the case the case with a new High priest who cannot be criticised about something that did not happen during his time in office[xi]”.

Conclusion
The Talmud teaches “it is not for you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it[xii]. This week I have also been reading about research relating to business failure that found that the collapse of great companies has been due less to lack of boldness and more to lack of discipline and perseverance with core activities[xiii]. I have been privileged to be called to a leadership role in the field of diversity. As I go about the business of this work, I will meet many texts and people who will not fit neatly into the roles I would like them to play. I will not fix them. I will seek a point of light, redeeming qualities and beauty. To do less would be irresponsible.


[i] Leviticus 19:18.
[ii] Numbers 31:2
[iii] Numbers 31:15-16
[iv] Rashi to 31:16
[v] Numbers 25:6 and as interpreted by Rashi and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh
[vi] Ohr Hachaim
[vii] Numbers 31:16
[viii] Leibowitz, N Studies in Bamidbar Numbers, p.377-378
[ix] Numbers 33:52 & 55
[xi] Chizkuni
[xii] Pirkey Avot 2:21
[xiii] Collins J, (2009), How the Might Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In, Random House Business Books

Friday, May 4, 2012

Revenge, Torah and Christianity

Anger, By Shubhojoy Mitra, creative commons license
http://www.cyberartgallery.org/?gallery=portal

The movie Ajami is an Israeli-Palestinian co-production that for me is about the heartbreaking cost of revenge. Much of the plot is driven by two Arabic teenagers, one a gentle sweet faced boy of around 14 who is a bit of an artist, and their family being pursued by a Bedouin crime family bent on avenging the death of one of theirs, unless they receive a financially crippling payment of blood money. An Israeli character also has his own vengeance to attend to after his soldier-brother is found dead near a Palestinian village. I empathised with both the Israeli and Arabic characters, portrayed as every day human beings who deeply love their families. Apart from humanising protagonists from both sides, my overwhelming impression was of the horrible needless suffering directly flowing from the perceived for some kind of vengeance.

I wonder if my low tolerance for revenge is the result of Christian influences on me, particularly from a young devout Christian peace builder I greatly admire named Jarrod McKenna. I remember when I first started work as a Rabbi 15 years ago, I was teaching a young adult about divine retribution as one of the themes the Friday night prayers. At the time, I thought this idea of divine justice was quite beautiful, righting the wrongs of the world. My student challenged me, would it not be better if at the end of days no one suffered? I remember reflecting on how different my perspective had been to that of my student who was raised with more exposure to Christian and secular influences.

These influences have been blocked out to some extent in the Hasidic community in Crown Heights that I was raised in. One on level it is fair enough for communities to stay true to their own teachings, the question is how to do that while fostering respectful interfaith relationships. The International Council of Christians and Jews’ called on Jewish communities to include basic and accurate background information about Christianity in the Curricula of Jewish schools[i]. In my very orthodox Chasidic community this is simply not going to happen.  I will not argue about the core objection to learning about other faiths generally, except to share what I was told by Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks[ii] that schools could teach about other faiths in the same way as one learns about other cultures.

This post looks at Torah sources about revenge and considers the Jewish- Christian relationship in that light.  

Prohibition of revenge and promotion of forgiveness
The verse “an eye for an eye[iii]” is not about revenge but monetary compensation[iv]. Revenge and even holding a grudge is forbidden in the text of the Torah[v]. One way to overcome the urge for revenge is by considering a case of a person cutting meat that accidentally cuts his arm, would he then take revenge and cut the hand that was holding the knife[vi]?! Faith can help a person see the hand of God in the offence, and this can help him not bear a grudge against the person who ‘acts as God’s tool’[vii].  This is dramatically played out in the story of Joseph when he insists on not holding a grudge against his brothers who sold him into slavery because he sees it all as fulfilment of God’s plan so that he could save many lives during the famine in Egypt[viii]. In the prayers before going to sleep, we proclaim forgiveness for anyone who sinned against me… in this life or another life…no one should be punished on my account[ix]

Permission and even encouragement of revenge
The teachings against revenge need to be considered alongside other guidance such as the clear instructions to take revenge against Midiyan[x] and never to forget the evil deeds of Amalek who attacked you us when we were vulnerable[xi]. This apparent contradiction is probably the reason the Talmud gives a very mundane example to illustrate this principle, a case of two people who want to borrow tools from each other. Refusal to lend a tool should not be reciprocated or even mentioned[xii]. The definition is narrowed to exclude cases of in which there is a monetary obligation[xiii], or in offenses against one’s body where there has been no apology[xiv], or murder in which case the relative would be encouraged to “redeem the blood” of his relative by killing his relatives killer with permission of the court[xv]. Scholars are encouraged to stand up against people who disrespect them, one sage going so far as to state that any sage that does not take revenge and hold a grudge like a snake is no scholar[xvi].  This has been explained as being about disrespect of the Torah the stage studied. Even God himself is portrayed (in addition to compassionate etc) as a God of vengeance[xvii]. One explanation of this is that God conquers anger while in a person who takes revenge the anger will conquer him[xviii].

Another consideration is that the prohibition of revenge refers explicitly to “the sons of your nation” and is understood to apply only between Jews[xix]. One argument by an East European commentator of the 16th early 17th century is that “disputes between Jews will typically be about unimportant offenses relating to money or body that don’t merit revenge but when revenge is permitted against someone from another nation because typically he wants to cause you to transgress the commandments of God and to lead you astray from God[xx].  In his context that was probably true, yet it is ridiculous and highly offensive not to recognise the change of heart and efforts of Christians in the 2nd half of the 20th century toward reconciliation with the Jews.

A bold idea, embracing enemies
My Christian friend Jarrod is into radical peace building. He is not a saint and felt plenty of anger when a man he knew was murdered. Yet he believes that he is called to love his enemies. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa seems to be an example of the value of that kind of approach. While not the same, parallel teaching can be found in Judaism. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi famously warned his followers about his opponents known as Mitnagdim who framed him and caused him to be imprisoned in Czarist Russia. He called on his followers not to “jeer nor whistle derisively at them, heaven forfend… (instead to respond to their opponents)… with “a soft answer [that] turns away anger[xxi],” and with a restrained spirit. And through all that, perhaps God will put [a conciliatory and loving response] into the heart of their brethren[xxii] God tells the offended party, “let your love for me overcome the hatred you have with him and through this peace will come between you[xxiii] and in another version,” let your love with him” presumably the one who hurt you, overcome the hatred…so that peace will come to the world[xxiv]”.

Conclusion
As a Jew, I still see some merit in the arguments that retribution has its place. There is a reason for the presence of this device in so many cultures. There are flawed human beings who will only restrain their unsavoury impulses out of fear of punishment[xxv]. While my tradition provides a mix of ideas about how to respond to grievances, I think in many cases it is worth emphasising the more generous teachings and applying them to people regardless of race or religion. Yet, there is something to be admired in the bold, positive, “game changing” approach of Christians to their enemies that can be supported by teachings within my own tradition.


[i] A time for recommitment, the twelve points of Berlin: A call to Christian and Jewish communities worldwide
[ii] Conversation I had with the Chief Rabbi at a private visit in his home March 2011
[iii] Exodus 21:24
[iv] Mechilta on Exodus and the Talmud in Ketuvot 32b and Bava Kamma 83b
[v] Leviticus 19:17
[vi] Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:4
[vii] Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 247, Tanya: Igeret HaKodesh - Epistle 25
[viii] Genesis 50:20
[ix] Siddur Tehilat Hashem p.141
[x] Number 31:2
[xi] Deuteronomy 25:17-19
[xii] Talmud Yoma 23a
[xiii] Ramban
[xiv] Hizkuni 19:17
[xv] Ramban
[xvi] Talmud Yoma 23a, commentary then softens it to say that the sage holds a grudge but does not fight back, he simply keeps it in his heart and then if someone else takes revenge on his behalf the sage is silent
[xvii] Psalms 94:1
[xviii] Hizkuni on
[xix] Kohelet Rabba 88:8
[xx] Klei Yakar, by Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550 –1619)
[xxi] Proverbs 15:1
[xxii] Tanya Igeret Hakodesh 2, translation from Chabad.org
[xxiii] Bchor shor
[xxiv] Hizkuni
[xxv] Pirkey Avot 3:2