Some Equivalence between Muslim and Jewish ruled societies? Torah prohibition of Jewish presence in Egypt

I was delighted to find a passage, in a Jewish religious text, that shows appreciation for Muslims and Islam. A respected commentator on the Torah suggests, that in one matter of Jewish law, a society ruled by a Muslim king would have equal status to one ruled by a Jewish king.

This teaching was a wonderful find for me, because I live between two worlds. One is the exclusivist Orthodox Jewish one; the other is one that embraces, and even celebrates, a wide range of beliefs and cultural ways. So when these two meet, it gives me great pleasure.

I had better preempt two kinds of fierce critiques, based on inferences that either Jewish and Islamic faiths are equally true or an endorsement of every aspect of Islam. This text should not be read as either relinquishing exclusive Truth claims for the Jewish faith or wholesale endorsement of Islam, neither of which it is addressing at all; it has a particular context.

However, the teaching does reflect a recognition of the fact that some of the virtues Jews strive for due to the influences of Judaism are also practiced by Muslims due to influences of Islam. Of course this is also the case with people with other sources of guidance, both religious and otherwise. 

With the disclaimers out of the way, let me get into this teaching. There is a contradiction between the fact that Jewish communities and some of our greatest scholars, most notably Maimonides, lived in Egypt, yet the Torah forbids Jews to live there (1).

The context of the prohibition is a series of laws to prevent kings from becoming corrupt, with the hope that the king’s “heart should not be haughty over his brothers” (2). These laws limit the amount of wealth and horses a king can accumulate. It then adds the following statement: "so that he [the king] will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses.(3)".

I was intrigued to read one authority declare that this commandment only applied for a limited time so that the Jews would not learn immoral behavior from the Egyptians, but did not apply for future generations (4). The line of argument that the prohibition has expired is extended in the writings of an early nineteenth century scholar, Rabbi Meir Benyamin Menachem Danon, who was the chief rabbi of Sarajevo in Muslim, Bosnia (5).

Danon argues that the conquest of Egypt by Muslims is a game changer. “When the king of the Ishmaelites [a reference to Arabs as well as Muslims] conquered the land of Egypt and all its inhabitants he turned them toward their religion [of Islam] and manners/cultural norms. With the passage of time, the Egyptians ...became like the Ishamaelites ...” (6). I wonder how Coptic Chrisitans would feel about this teaching, but let’s take Danon in his Bosnian Context. 

Danon’s basis for his argument is in the writing of Maimonides who states that: "it seems to me, that if the land of Egypt were to be conquered by a Jewish king under the guidance of a Beth Din, [a Torah court], the prohibition would no longer apply” (7). Danon essentially argued that it doesn't matter what kind of monotheistic society Egypt would be. He wrote that Maimonides’ reference to a Beth Din is merely descriptive of the typical scenario of a Jewish king going to war, rather than a condition for the law.

One might dismiss Danon’s argument based on the fact that Maimonides ruled that living in Egypt was still forbidden and only tentatively suggests it might be permitted under a Jewish king. If Danon’s view is in accordance with Maimonides’ own view why does Maimonides not state this explicitly? In fact, Maimonides use of the expression “it seems to me” is questioned by two scholars (8) who wonder why he does not simply present his view as law.

I suggest that this tentativeness might offer a hint to Maimonides’ real opinion on the matter. The fact that he was living in Egypt meant that he was personally implicated by this particular law, if he was in breach of it. In fact, it has been claimed that Maimonides would sign his letters, "Moshe ben Maimon, who transgresses three prohibitions each day" on account of his residence in Egypt (9). He could hardly feel comfortable justifying himself, in a novel way. We are taught that “one should not be defensive, in accordance with the proverb that one cannot recognise one’s own faults”, instead one should seek to judge oneself truthfully (10). This ethical principle might explain both Maimonides reticence in justifying living in Egypt under Muslim rule and the tentative language he uses to introduce the monotheistic conquest exception.

Danon’s teaching illustrates a manner of respect between believers that is not merely relativist. Rather, it acknowledges the reality that in some significant ways the religious influences of other faiths on their adherents can lead them to similar outcomes to those achieved through the influence of one’s own faith. There is no need to agree about the big questions of how to get to heaven or please the creator, but for the sake of truth let us recognise the truth about our neighbours, whose beliefs differ from our own, including the non-religious. Surely, this is in keeping with the idea that the Torah’s ways are ways of peace (11).

  

Notes 

1)            Deuteronomy 17:16

2)            Deuteronomy 17:20

3)            Deuteronomy 17:16

4)            Bachaya, on Deuteronomy 17:16, Ritva to Yoma 38 also takes the law to be non-applicable to his time but his reason is that the prohibition only applies to returning to Egypt from Israel, but moving there from other diaspora lands is permitted. This view seemed to contradict both the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5:1 and Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 51b which state that the massive Jewish community of Alexandria was destroyed because they disobeyed the commandment against settling in Egypt. Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:8 rules that living permanently in Egypt is forbidden.

5)            http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4891-danon-meir-benjamin-menahem chief rabbi of Sarajevo in Bosnia, author of "Be'er ba-Sadeh".

6)            Be'er ba-Sadeh, on this verse,  published in Jerusalem in 1846

7)            Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:8

8)            Torah Temima, Levin, A. in Hadrash VeHaiyun, Shoftim, Maamar 125, p. 150 ff.

9)            Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1280-1366), in his encyclopedic work Kaftor v'Ferah, (ch. 5), cited in  Loewenberg, M. May a Jew live in Egypt?,   http://www.jewishmag.com/173mag/jew_live_in_egypt/jew_live_in_egypt.htm

10)          Chida in Nachal K’domim, in Torat Hachida, shoftim, p. 129

11)          Proverbs 3:17

Letting the guard down? On fears and policing

Part of my mind acts as a policeman watching me. Did I do this right? Am I good enough? This self-vigilance and fear is draining.  This week, while I was walking on a nature trail in Ryde, I noticed a sign for walkers that reminded them to “control your dog”. I creatively interpreted it as the need for people to control the ”barking” in the form of repetitive and harsh self-criticism.

I deliberately suggest we “control” the critical voice in our minds, rather than eliminate it, because I think it plays a role in protecting us from wrongdoing. I have been confronted this week with some of the darker sides of humans. I was disturbed to hear about cruelty to men, women and their children who have escaped horrific oppression, because they dared to seek a better life and perhaps because of cultural differences that are seen as a threat (1). In this case, fear of people who are seen as different, is the motivator for cruelty. However, here the critical voice expressing fear of wrongdoing could have motivated these people to do the right thing. Every weekday morning during the current Hebrew month of Elul, Jews sound a ram’s horn called a Shofar, to instil “a sense of trepidation and fear” (2), even “trembling” (3), in order to lead us to repentance and introspection.

Some religious people fear the physical world - its sensual pleasures and material offerings. In a crowded Sydney Mosque, I heard a very young Imam warn against the evils of the “dunya”, the physical world, with great intensity. This week’s Torah reading tells us to appoint police officers at “all our gates” (4). In a metaphoric sense, this is interpreted to mean that we must appoint an internal ”policeman” to monitor our contact with the world that comes through our five senses (5). Societies look eagerly to police to protect them from the vices of their fellow citizens. In the US, this approach has not worked out well, in recent months, for some African Americans. 

Instead of allowing fear to justify excessive policing, we must embrace a healthier kind of fear - not of the common man but of the corruption of those in positions of power. The Torah warns of the bias that can arise from judges accepting bribes (6), which can ultimately cause even an initially righteous judge to lose his mind (7). The Torah insists that a king must be vigilant to ensure that “his heart does not become elevated above his brothers and that he does not stray from God’s commandments” (8). 

One scholar expresses deep distrust of those in power. He suggests that it would be better for those with power to be appointed for fixed terms of three years or less so that their successors could hold them to account and “investigate them to see whether they breached their trusted role”, in the way that Australian Governments often do with their predecessors.  He also insists that, when there is a dispute between one (a ruler) and many (the citizens), we should follow the view of the many. He argues that the risk of “an individual doing wrong out of foolishness, desire or anger, is greater than that happening with the many” (9). Similar sentiments were expressed last week by an eleven-year-old student from a migrant family in Western Sydney. She thought ”the Australian way was right”, because of our system of government that requires, at least in its design, that the will of the people be implemented rather than that of one despotic ruler.

In terms of the sensual temptations themselves, the Torah does not see them as simply bad. On the contrary, we are cautioned against rejecting the pleasures of this world. A person who vows not to drink wine temporarily (10), is seen as having sinned in a sense. Sheikh Soner Coruhlu has a different view of the material/physical world from the one expressed by the young Imam above. He wrote that “The ’Dunya', from my understanding of our tradition, is an opportunity…to draw nearer unto to the Creator by proving one's self worthy of drawing near. The manner in which one draws near to their Lord is … moral excellence while believing in the Most High. The “Dunya” therefore is an opportunity when one is morally and ethically inclined but a threat if one is miserly, oppressive, immoral, unethical etc.” (11).

Fear of our own human vulnerability to do wrong is a necessity and a blessing when it is used wisely and proportionately. Fear of people who appear different from us, is simply bigotry. Being wary of those in positions of power or even of our own internal policeman getting out of control, is vital. 

1)    http://hotline.org.il/en/main/
2)    Sadia Gaon, cited in http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/4392/jewish/Sounding-of-the-Shofar.htm
3)    Amos 3:6 “If the shofar is sounded in the city, will people not tremble?”
4)    Deuteronomy 16:18
5)    Attributed to Rav Chaim Vital on http://www.shortvort.com/shoftim-parasha/11901-parashas-shoftim-guard-your-senses
6)    Deuteronomy 16:19
7)    Talmud Ketubot, 105a, referring to the taking of bribes
8)    Deuteronomy 17:20
9)    Abarbanel on Shoftim. On the other hand, the commentator Klei Yakar, seems more concerned about the independence of judges. He emphasises the need to protect judges from the potentially corrupting influences of those who install the judges, if they were to retain an influence after they complete the task of installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse in the Torah that calls for the appointment of judges, is instructive. “Judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice”. We start with an imperative instruction to the people to תתן appoint judges. This refers to people who are in a position of influence who can help select and appoint the judges. Then the language shifts to talk about what will happen: “they will judge justly”, as if by themselves, with the ‘appointers’ out of the picture. This hints at the need for complete independence of the judiciary from those who appoint them because, if they remain dependent on those people, there will never be justice. There is no naïve assumption of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness. The political influences on secular judges in Australia and Israel, as it relates to asylum seeker judgements, can also be considered in this light.
10)    A Nazirite who vows not to drink wine among other vows, must bring a sacrifice to atone for rejecting some of God’s gifts, even temporarily
11)    Facebook post, 18.08.2015, https://www.facebook.com/zalman.kastel/posts/10153457332070470?comment_id=10153457499415470&notif_t=like his post continues with the following. “The human being is distinct from the rest of Creation in that it has the capacity to morally judge the outcome of any action or statement it may partake in. Where most of creation will simply follow the whims of their desires, the human being will first analyse what the consequence of following one's desires may be. Will this act harm another person, another animal, the environment, me and so forth. Those who do not use this God given capacity to make such judgements and simply follow their base desires, even when it harms others, behaves in a way that is not unlike the animals”.

Good Intentions Good Works

Yesterday I heard a simply dressed woman stand up in the audience of a large room describe the way she and others in Tamworth help refugees and new arrivals in Tamworth, a country town. There is no money, no grants, no questions of accountability, just people simply working together to help newcomers, driving them in their own vehicle to inspect an apartment, helping with needed furniture and other practical needs. There was something really wholesome and inspiring in this great example where pure intention meets good works, with no other motives. Unfortunately, this is not always practical, for example in my case I do good work, based on positive intentions, but we have chosen to professionalise the work, which means I am paid for the work and there are questions of interests, power and authority over people that report to me.

Other-Focused

Monday: My step is light. My mood is upbeat. I’m walking down quiet tree lined streets to a trail that takes me into a little forest. The leaves are so many shades of red, brown and green. I’m not happy because I am noticing the trees. The opposite is true. I’m noticing the trees because of an inner joy.  It’s the joy of freeing myself from stress about funding for the organisation I lead by moving my focus to the people I have the privilege to serve.  This morning, I turned my attention back to lobbying the government for funding but my intention is not to keep afloat but on maximizing the benefit to children across this country. Thinking about how to ensure the impact is greater. I am experiencing the joy of being focused on my intentions to help others.

I feel inspired by Martin Luther King jnr’s “mountain top speech” and its focus away from self to the needs of the people he was committed to help. I used to read Moses’ speech about not getting to the Promised Land as a lament. “I pleaded with God at that time, saying. Lord, God, you have begun to show your servant your greatness…please let me pass (over the river) and see the good land…[i]”. Alas Moses’ plea is refused and he is merely allowed to see the Promised Land from the top of a mountain. In King’s speech shortly before he is assassinated he sees it differently. King tells his audience that “It doesn’t matter about me now”, he is not afraid to die because he has “been to the mountain top, and seen the Promised Land” he can see the realisation of his dream of an equal society. This is the head space I think we need to operate in, if we can. Thinking not about our own wishes or needs but of those we serve.

Intentions

Wednesday: I hear a speech by Mrs. Maha Abdo, a leader of the Muslim Women’s association. I am sitting next to her on the panel at a diversity conference. She begins by asking us to close our eyes and focus on our intention for being in that room at that moment. I close my eyes and think about the networking I came to do, promoting my organisation and decide that a better intention would be to focus on really hearing what others are saying and being here for the people in this room in the discussion. Maha says that in her recent trip to a village in Yemen the normal practice before doing anything is to stop and think about intention. I love it.

Impact

Alongside good intentions is the obligation to judge whether our efforts are having an impact, sometimes using “hard” instruments, such as demands for data, accountability and giving harsh criticism to ensure this is being achieved. This is particularly true when public or charitable funds are being used.

The Torah commands the people to put judges and “police” (Shortim שוטרים) in all their gates[ii]. This has been interpreted metaphorically as a requirement for making judgements about the words that come out of our mouths as well as what and how we choose to see things with our eyes and hear with our ears. I suggest that the priority be placed on wise judgement with any harshness being carefully employed only in accordance with this wisdom.

 The Hebrew word shoter שוטר , that I translated as police, has more than one interpretation. One scholar translated it as “rulers[iii]”. In his model there is a separation of powers,  there is the judiciary who make judgements and the rulers who ensure that the ruling of the judges is imposed. In this model there appears to be no ambivalence about the combination of coercive power and authority. An alternative and more prevalent view is that the “Shoter” has no authority of his own and refers to “the lads” who are given very specific instructions by the judges to enforce their judgements[iv]. In the second model, force or harshness is rightfully positioned in its proper subservient role.

I hope in my life I get it right, at the level of motives, intentions and impact on others. More broadly, the Australian government’s harsh treatment of asylum seekers, and the policies advocated by both major parties during our current election campaign needs to be challenged both at the level of intention and impact. May compassion prevail and all force and harshness humbly serve justice as determined by wise judgment.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 3:24-26

[ii] Deuteronomy 16:18

[iii] Ibn Ezra

[iv] Mizrahi based on Rashi commentary on Deuteronomy 16:18 and Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos. In one version of Rashi he used the word “Gularion” which Marcus Jastrow explains to be a “soldiers boy”, or the most junior soldiers who typically are sent ahead in harm’s way but the credit it given to the more senior soldiers.