Escape the Inner Noise

I am reading, in a book by Christine Jackman, about the problem of the stream of troubling thoughts or chatter in our minds [i] and the virtue of achieving quiet and stillness.  Such thoughts are sometimes self-recriminating: “Why was I such a fool?” They can be stewing about other people’s faults: “She is so horrible.” Or fearful thoughts. All these thoughts can flood us with negativity, outrage, envy, anxiety, and stress. What is to be done?

Shame

Jackman is searingly honest about the self-critical thoughts that would sometimes torment her. She is not alone in being afflicted by the stream of thoughts in her mind. “Studies have revealed that most people find it hard to tolerate being alone with their thoughts, even for relatively short periods of time.” “Simply being alone with their thoughts for 15 minutes was apparently so aversive that it drove many participants to self-administer an electric shock…[ii]” just to avoid the discomfort of facing themselves. I understand this as some of us feeling ashamed of our own inadequacies and afraid of being confronted with these.

It doesn’t make sense because most of us are not really so shame-worthy. Yet, such thoughts persist.

Fear and Worry

Sometimes we ruminate not on our self-worth but on what we should do, especially relating to earning a livelihood. “The many thoughts in the heart of man, that hassle the person by raising many doubts about every matter…being pulled this way and that way…[iii]”. More ominous, are undefined fears that are not related to a clear danger. This is explained by the sages as a fear that “although he does not see it, his guardian angel [iv]  his soul [v] or perhaps his subconscious - sees the danger [vi]”. This could be very unsettling.  

Don’t run

Rumi wrote, “Your old life was a frantic running from silence [vii]”. Jackman quotes Rumi as a way of reflecting on the fact that her ruminating thoughts were a way to avoid confronting her deeper self, hidden beneath the noisy, repetitive, and meaningless thoughts. Instead, she encourages us to stop the flow of ruminating thoughts and be still – primarily through meditation or walking mindfully in a forest [viii]. This is not a quick fix, but this capacity can be built over time. Like Jackman, Carl Jung called us to look at the “shadow” part of ourselves, those parts of ourselves that might otherwise remain hidden, but still influence our thoughts and life.

At the right time

I agree with Jung and Jackman that it is better to confront ourselves, than to escape, at least sometimes. On the other hand, I think escape can sometimes be a good thing as well. Chasidic writings suggest that, if ruminating thoughts about sins we’ve committed, or not being good enough, pop into our head, “this is what one should take to his heart, this is not a good time… [to effectively deal with such concerns and for introspection], this requires specially scheduled sessions, at an appropriate moment, with a settled mind [ix]”. I have tried this technique and it worked for me. After telling myself that now is not a good time for ruminating on my faults and past shortcomings, I was able to park that thought for another time and refocus on what was in front of me at that time.

Silence in Conflict

One of the great men of the Talmud stated, “I grew up among the wise and I have not found anything better for the body than silence [x].”  One virtue of silence is when one, for example, hears him/herself being denigrated, and is silent [xi]. A lot of the “noise” in our heads consists of rehearsed or rehashed conversations we might have with other people in response to their hurtful words. It would be much better for us if we could stop those thoughts and shift to equanimity. A beautiful phrase in a Jewish prayer expresses this aspiration: “To those who curse me, may my soul be silent [xii]”. Alternatively, another prayer states, “I forgive anyone who sinned against me… [including] sins against my honour [xiii].”

Jackman cautions against expecting a complete and quick transformation. Instead, she urges the reader to keep at it. The Torah would certainly agree.

---

[i] Jackman, C (2020), Turning Down The Noise: The quiet power of silence in a busy world, Murdoch Books, Sydney, London

[ii] Wilson, T.D. et al, In Jackman, C (2020), p. 146

[iii] The Rebbe, Rabbi Shmuel, known as the Maharash, in Toras Shmuel, Maamar Mayim Rabbim, p, 1

[iv] Rashi commentary on Talmud, Megila 3a

[v] Steinzaltz commentary on Talmud, Megila 3a

[vi] Talmud, Megila 3a, cited in Rabbi Chayim Yosef David Azulai, Toras Hachida , Devarim, p 11

[vii] Jackman, C, (2020), p. 73

[viii] Michelle Brenner has introduced me to the concept of forest bathing and walking meditation – which can be achieved, at least partially, by walking in nature and being very mindful of one’s surroundings. Jackman also writes about walking in nature.

[ix] Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi in Tanya chapter 26, as adapted by Miller, C. (2016), the Practical Tanya, part 1, p. 305

[x] Pirkey Avot 1:17

[xi] Ovadia Bartenura on Pirkey Avot 1:17

[xii] The end of the Amida, Elohai Netzor

[xiii] The prayer before going to sleep

God’s children - disowned? Political, social justice and religious perspectives - Haazinu

under creative commons license,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ original at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/route79/2570725825/

I object to the idea of God completely rejecting people. If we accept the proposition that God Himself rejected a group utterly, then why should mere mortals restrain their own bigotry or oppression? I am committed to the principle of the intrinsic worth of every human. On Wednesday this week, I was dressed in a ritual white robe, fasting and praying to my “father in heaven” for atonement. I feel cleansed and have a warm peaceful feeling. Yet in Judaism there is an argument against my assumption of an unconditional parent-child relationship between God and me.

We have an ambiguous verse in this week’s reading of Haazinu. If translated literally it reads:  “Destroyed/Corrupted to him, no, his children, their blemish, [a] crooked and twisted generation”. 1 One way of reading the first part of this text is “Corrupted to Him [namely to God, have they, the Jews, who are] not [any more considered to be] His children, [and this lost status] is their blemish…” The idea is that the status of being God’s children can be lost due to disobedience”. 2

While I can see the advantages of not setting one group apart as God’s children, I am uncomfortable with the idea of any group being deemed “God’s disowned children”. One source for the notion of a conditional relationship is in the Talmud, 3 but it comes not from the great sages but out of the mouth of an evil person, the Roman Governor, poster-boy for what not to do in Inter-faith dialogue, Turnus-Rufus the wicked. 4 The Governor asserted in an argument with Rabbi Akiva about the merit of charity, that when the Jews do not do the will of God they are no longer called his children but rather his servants. 5 He argued that because God does not provide sustenance to poor Jews, other Jews should not interfere in God’s plan by giving them charity.

Rabbi Akiva did not argue the point, which some might take as him agreeing with it. 6 I suggest Rabbi Akiva was focused on the main game, which was the attempted justification of the Roman cruel oppression of the minority exiled Jews, rather than the word play in the theological argument. 7 Rabbi Akiva, ignored the arrogant and flawed 8 attempt by Turnus Rufus to determine Jewish theology and instead drew his attention to the prophet’s call, to bring the “oppressed poor into your home”. 9 There is a pointed reference to the cruelty of the oppressive Romans and a clever move that enabled him to recapture the moral high ground as he negotiated the position of his people.

However this argument goes back even earlier between sages of the Talmud themselves, 10 but I have seen it argued that this dispute was resolved with the proponent of conditional “child status”, conceding in the end to his opponent 11 that in fact even when the Israelites behave poorly, they are castigated as it is our reading of Haazinu as “Sons in whom there is no faith”, 12 or “foolish sons”.   13

I find the alternative interpretations to our text above about “His children” more plausible. It has been translated as “They have corrupted for themselves, their good deeds, His beloved children”. 14 Or, in another interpretation it is the ‘Jews themselves that have turned their back on the relationship with God rejecting their status as His children in their hearts’. 15 Yet, God insists in the very next verse that the Jews should recognise Him as their father, God asking rhetorically “Is he not your father?!” 16 On the day after Yom Kippur I feel a little closer to my Father in heaven, whose parenthood, at least from His perspective was never in question. I pray that all of God’s children, regardless of their beliefs or behaviour be shown His love and compassion, and are valued by their fellow humans unconditionally.

Notes

1.    Deuteronomy 32:5, שִׁחֵת לוֹ לֹּא בָּנָיו מוּמָם דּוֹר עִקֵּשׁ וּפְתַלְתֹּל
2.    Note that in Hebrew the same word “Lo- לא” is used both for no and not. This view is taken by highly respected classic commentators including Ramban, also known as Nachmanides, of the 13th century, Abarbanel 15th Century and more recent commentators: Ohr Hachayim 18th Century, Samson Raphael Hirsch 19th Century. The view of the most commonly studied and very authoritative Rashi from the 11th century is ambiguous. He states "they were his sons, but the corruption that they corrupted is their blemish”. One prominent supra-commentary, known as Mizrahi, emphasises the past tense in Rashi’s comment. “they were” [his children] meaning at the beginning, because it cannot be that they would be called His children after they have acted corruptly. This view seemed to be shared by Sifsei Chachomim, but it is disputed by Be’er Basadeh who asserts that Rashi sees the damage in the context of a non-negotiable parent child relationship, in which God is as protective of His children as one would be toward the apple of their eye but because of the sin God hides his face. Yet, he argues that the relationship is not confined to the past, prior to the sin as we can see from the way Rashi continues to refers to the Jews as God’s children in Rashi’s very next sentence. Sefer Hazikaron, agreed with Mizrahi that the relationship is conditional but also notes the evidence for a non-negotiable relationship cited by Be’er Basadeh, and states that he doesn’t understand it, and that further study is needed. 
3.    Talmud Bava Basra, 10a
4.    http://arachimusa.org/ArticleDetail.asp?ArticleID=1529
5.    Talmud Bava Basra, 10a
6.    This might explain the direct quote from Turnus Rufus turning up in Ohr Hachayim but being attributed to those whose “memory is a blessing”, in Ohr Hachayim’s commentary to Deuteronomy 32:5
7.    See Maharsha on Talmud Bava Basra, 10a, beginning with “this makes them liable for hell”.
8.    Torah Temimah on Deuteronomy 14:1, refutes the binary proposition put forward by Turnus Rufus that Jews can either be the children or God as they are referred in some verses, which he asserts apply when they do the will of God, and they are refered to as servants of Gods in other verses which would apply when they don’t do the will of God. In fact, Moses himself is called a servant of God as a form of high praise, rather than punishment. 
9.    Isaiah 58, read as the Yom Kippur Haftorah, translation follows Maharsha’s commentary
10.    Talmud Kidushin 36a
11.    Torah Temimah on Deuteronomy 14:1 asserts that this implied in the Sifre on Deuteronomy 32:5
12.    Deuteronomy 32:20
13.    Jeremiah 4
14.    This is a composite of the translations by the classic translators, Unkelus (1st Century) and Yonatan Ben Uziel (One of the Tanaaim of the Talmud, possibly ever earlier than Unkelus), Rashbam (12th century) follows a similar approach, the cantillation marks for the words suggest a pause between the words “no/not” and “his sons” with the word Lo, marked by a Tipcha. Malbim (19th Century) takes the commentary into a completely different direction, which also does not follow the approach of God disowning His children.
15.    Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 32:5 and 6
16.    Deuteronomy 32:6

New Year’s repentance, reality, “addictive” behaviours and change – Nitzavim Vayelech

In less than a week I will join my fellow Jews in prayer facing God’s judgement on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. The prayer, Unesaneh Tokef (“Let us acknowledge the potency of the holiness of this day”) that inspired Leonard Cohen’s song “who by fire”, will be solemnly read and sung. Its phrases inviting us to reflect on our fate, either tranquillity or distress, life or a harsh death but disaster can be prevented if we repent. Yet, repentance becomes harder over time.  Like the infamous New Year’s resolutions, it involves me making a commitment to myself that I will behave differently next year. Can I trust myself to change when the context in which I make choices about my behaviour remain the same? 

In our Torah reading just prior to this holy day, Moses in tell the Israelites, “You are standing together today, all of you… to enter into a covenant ”. Perhaps one way to improve our prospects for doing right is by drawing strength from a community or fellowship. This is one of the key ingredients in the success of twelves steps programs .

On the other hand, identifying with a faith community can be used to perpetuate poor choices. We have the sinner who “will bless himself in his heart, telling himself, I will have peace as I follow my heart's desires (concluding cryptically with the words) to add the “Rava”  רוהwatered to the thirsty” . One commentary explains that he convinces himself that his sins won’t matter because the majority of people will behave uprightly and so as a member of the community he will still be able to enjoy the benefits of others good works . This is compared to a field that is not watered (the wicked) next to a regularly watered field (eg. the righteous), the unwatered/thirsty field’s crops would benefit from the watered field . 

Judaism teaches that our hearts follow our actions. The rituals are activities that influence our attitudes. In this model, although it is hard to change our attitude, we can change our practices and this in turn influences our attitudes. Following this theory, if I go to the fridge when I feel stressed, I am reinforcing a dependency on food for mood management. If I abstain from snacking on “comfort food” I am reinforcing my capacity for self-control.

One problematic commentary by Nahmanides (1194-1270) emphasises behaviour. It translates the word “Rava” as “sated” and relates it to the situation of the spirit that does not desire “things that are bad for it”. It relates the word “thirsty” to the desire for beautiful women. It suggests that if a man is submerged in promiscuity with women, his desire will increase greatly until he will want things he did not originally desire such as homosexuality and bestiality .  An obvious problem with this commentary is that his 13th century view of homosexuality does not conform to the reality reported by homosexuals about their own experience. A second problem is his equation of bestiality and homosexuality which I find offensive. I have dealt with attitudes toward homosexuals within Torah in an earlier post http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/torah-based-responses-to-homosexuality.html. In this post I explore the “desire” aspect of this commentary.

I am concerned about the way this commentary deals with desire, particularly the way the commentary is adapted by a modern scholar, Nechoma Leibowitz in she which uses the word “addicted” to describe the sinner. I am concerned that the reader might miss the recognition of the way the person begins to lose control. I am afraid of some getting an impression that we are dealing with person who is simply evil and happily indulging him or herself. There is little scope for considering the profound pain suffered by addicts, including those addicted to sex, the internet or work that leads them to “self-medicate”.  It is critical to avoid judgement because we can never truly stand in another person’s shoes or “place ”.

Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, who I am named after, manages to articulate a powerful message of understanding for people’s circumstances. He suggest that when tempted to judge others we should consider that it is “his physical environment that causes him to sin, since his livelihood requires him to go about the market-place all day…(or) he is of those who sit at the street-corners. Thus his eyes see all sorts of temptation; and “‘what the eyes see, the heart desires….” R. Shneur Zalman also asks us to avoid judgement based on other factors including individual temperaments . The caveat on this is Judaism holds a very strong belief in free choice and ultimate personal responsibility. How much choice there is in the lived experience of the addict is a difficult question I don’t feel qualified to answer.   

For me part of the frustration is founded in unrealistic expectations about how much I can change my habits. I think I need a balance between hope and realistic caution about the prospects for success. Our reading combines these two messages. It tells us that “indeed, this matter is very close (achievable) to you, in your mouth, and your heart to do it ”.   Yet, we have Moses and God both clearly pessimistic about the people changing their habits. God predicts that when Moses dies the people will stray  and Moses expects that the rebelliousness he saw while he was still alive will continue and perhaps get worse after he dies , because “I know that you will be become corrupted ”. The reading offers a lot of punishment, which I guess I can apply in my own life by considering the consequences of various choices and recognise that if I want certain things to happen in my life, family and work there are choices that makes those outcomes either more or less likely. 

As is customary, we respond to the weighty day of judgement with good wishes ahead of this awesome day.  So, to all members of the human family, including my Jewish sisters and brothers, may the next year be a good and sweet one. May we all once again back ourselves and affirm that we will give it our best shot and try, yet again, to be better next year. Let us not imprison our future by our past. Equally, let us be gentle to ourselves and each other by accepting the very compassionate words about ourselves at the conclusion of the frightful “Unesaneh Tokef” prayer, we humans are as a species need “to use our very soul just to earn some bread, we are compared to withering grass, a fading flower, a passing shade, a dissipating cloud, a blowing wind, flying dust, and a fleeting dream”.

Sources: 


 Deuteronomy 29:9- 11
  The connection between twelve steps and our Torah reading is made in this article: http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/744681/jewish/Unity-Is-Our-Strength.htm
  Deuteronomy 29:18
  Ibn Ezra
  Not sure about the science here, but this is the teaching
  Sefer Hachinuch
  Ramban
  Pirkey Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 2:4
  Tanya 30, translation text taken from Lessons in Tanya http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7909/jewish/Chapter-30.htm
  Deuteronomy 30:14
  Deuteronomy 31:16
  Deuteronomy 31:27
  Deuteronomy 31:29

After a Lapse

There are times we fail to live up to the standards of those we care about or to our own. It would be nice if these can all end in complete redemption, is that how it works? Let us examine the case of the Golden Calf.

The context for this lapse is the overwhelming experience of a downtrodden people being rescued and embraced by the most magnificent being. The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt followed by the experience at Mt. Sinai has been compared to a “great king showing great intense love to a lowly, despised man, who is dirty and sitting in the garbage. The King goes down to him with all his ministers and lifts him up from the garbage and brings him into the inner rooms of the palace…and hugs and kisses him and forms an attachment with him of “spirit to spirit” and real closeness”[1].  Part of what God wants is an exclusive relationship with this people. But they go ahead and make a golden calf.

A member of the Jewish community in Sydney told me about his conversations with Muslims in Lebanon who seemed to suggest that the Jews were rejected by God and replaced with the adherents of Islam. One of my religious, knowledgeable, Muslim friends tells me that this not what Islam teaches, while an Imam I know explained to me that there is a view that the covenant was conditional, was not an all time covenant, and was broken by the Jews later on". There are also arguments about whether Christians should see the covenant with Israel as having been superseded[2]. Pope John Paul II was of the view that the original covenant is current and continues to be binding. Still, the question is an interesting one. Can a relationship recover after a great betrayal?

A careful reading of the exact wording of God’s rage after the incident provides some clues. “And the Lord said to Moses: "… your people that you have brought up from the land of Egypt have acted corruptly. They have quickly turned away from the path that I have commanded them; they have made themselves a molten calf! … Now leave Me, and My anger will be kindled against them so that I will annihilate them, and I will make you into a great nation.[3]"

One the one hand God is distancing himself from the Jews. They are no longer God’s people; they are now the people of Moses[4], “your people”.  He also seems quite open to eliminating the Jews and replacing them with a new people to be descended from Moses.    

Yet there are a surprising few words in which God tells Moses “leave me”, as if saying; let me destroy them. Was Moses holding on to God that He needs Moses to let go?! This is compared to a king who was angry with his son and took him into a small room and began seeking to kill him. The king then begins screaming from the room, leave me to beat him. The prince’s teacher is standing outside. He thinks to himself, the king is in there alone with the prince why is saying leave me? Surely it is because the king wants me to go in to appease him about his son. This is what God was hinting to Moses, immediately Moses began to ask for mercy[5].  God was “opening the door”[6] and implying that this decision was negotiable and that “the matter depended on him, if he will pray they will not be annihilated[7]”.  

We are taught that Moses was rewarded for this prayer, meriting a “shining face” in this world from what God will give the righteous in the future, in the Messianic era[8]. 

We can more clearly see the hint that Moses’ prayer would be accepted if we compare this text with a similar text[9]. God tells the prophet Jeremiah. “And you, pray not on behalf of this people, neither lift up a cry nor prayer, and entreat Me not for I will not hear you[10]”. No ambiguity in that verse, in contrast with ours where God is almost hinting to Moses that his prayer will be accepted.

When I think of God’s rage from a Chasidic perspective I think of it (at least in a sense) as a bit of theatre[11]. God chooses to express great rage so that the people understand the seriousness of their lapse. I would see this as consistent with the following teaching about anger. “A person should train himself not to anger even on a matter regarding which anger is appropriate. If a person wants to instil awe upon his children and family[12], or if he is an officer of the community and wants to anger at the community members in order that they mend their ways, he should only feign anger in their presence in order to castigate them, but his mind should be composed within. He should act as one impersonating an [angry] man while not being angry himself[13]”.

I tried this once, when as a Yeshiva student I was responsible for a performance at a Sydney Public School the morning after some very late night Purim alcohol fuelled celebrations. One of the guys with a minor part told he was going back to sleep. I did not really need him, but I knew the guy I really needed to play the king in the other dorm room could hear what was going on. I could not let this seem ok. I screamed as if I really lost it. When I went into the other room, the other guy said, ok, ok, I am getting up. Cool, I thought, that went to plan.   

Regardless of how angry God really was, and putting aside the view that the Golden Calf was not actually idol worship[14], the bottom line is that we see the Israelites bouncing back from a dramatic betrayal of the 2^nd of the Ten Commandments. God’s reconciliation with the Israelites is also illustrated by God’s instruction to them to create a house for him. It is interpreted as a testimony to all the nations that they were granted atonement for the sin of the calf[15].

Still, despite the reconciliation after the Golden Calf, it is not forgotten. Whenever the Jews would sin in the future, God would remember a little of this sin, (1/24^th) together with the other sins[16]. This reminds me of the story about the nails in the fence.

There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence. The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down. He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.

Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all. He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper. The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence. He said, "You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound is still there[17]. 

Conclusion: Reconciliation is possible even after some serious lapses. In some cases the scars that remain are still serious.  This should bring us hope about the problems we already have as individuals, groups and nations, and caution about inflicting harm that might never completely heal.

---

[1] Tanya chapter 46

[2] I do not have a lot of knowledge about this complex issue of supersession, but it seems worth exploring

[3] Exodus 32:7-10

[4] Midrash Tanaaim 177, Pesikta Drav Kahana 16:128

[5] Midrash Shemot Rabba 42

[6] Midrash Tanchuma 22f

[7] Rashi

[8] Seder Eliyahu Rabba 4

[9] Rabbi Avraham the son of Maimonides, cited in Torah Shlaima vol 21, p.103

[10] Jeremiah 7:16

[11] This is based on my understanding of the concept of Tzimtzum – divine “contraction” in Chabad Chasidic teaching, God is compared to a father who wishes to play with his young son, so he takes on a playful persona and plays with the child. While the parent is present with the child in and in his role, this is very different to the way the father is essentially

[12] This text was written over 800 years ago in a particular social context, family dynamics have fortunately moved on from then

[13] Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, Laws of De'os – 2:3, translation from http://www.torah.org/learning/mlife/ch2law3c.html

[14] Bchor Shor

[15] Midrash Tanchuma Teruma 8

[16] Rashi to Exodus 32:34, Talmud Sanhedrin 102a

[17] http://www.inspirational-short-stories.com/bad-temper.html