Elephants Talk & Silence

This image is from http://david.sickmiller.com
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Yesterday a Muslim educator taught me something very powerful about silence. Students from Australian Arabic Muslim families will be meeting with Jewish students in the coming weeks in the aftermath of the death, despair and destruction in Gaza and Israel. From an adults perspective, it is “the elephant in the room”, that needs to be discussed. Yet, the educator pointed out that by discussing it in the context of an interfaith school program we are giving an implicit message that Israel and Palestine should be seen as integral to interaction between Jews and Muslims in Australia. He thought the right message for his students in that particular context is that we are Australians of different faiths who are learning to respect and like each other.

On the other hand this week, I spoke with a number of educators responsible for supporting migrant children, some of whom are likely to lose their jobs due to government cuts. I began the discussion with the inspiring clip from Martin Luther King Jnr. He invokes Moses standing on the mountain top seeing the promised land of Canaan that he will never reach but to which his people will soon arrive. King says that he too is facing hard times, but despite having loved to live a long life, “it doesn’t matter about me now…because I have been to the mountain top and I have seen the Promised Land…” and he was confident that his dream would be realised. The message to the teachers was although it is a difficult time, the work they do and the broader shift to at least a general acceptance of diversity is unstoppable. Having acknowledged the difficult issue on people’s minds and seen it in this context was really uplifting, we were then able to discuss other matters.

The following is a more general reflection on speaking out and silence mostly written in 2010 but still relevant.

The obligation to speak out or be silent

If we are silent in the face of apparent injustice, at least certain circumstance we can be considered complicit in it. Speaking Talking about our grievances, might result in resolution, or at least give us the feeling that we did what we can. The negatives of silence need to be considered against the problems arising out of speaking out. In some situations, our critique can be ill-informed, driven by unconscious and unsavory motives, cause unnecessary embarrassment, or fail to achieve anything apart from defensiveness, hostility or even escalated offending behaviour and “push-back”. The Talmud comments about the people in its own time[i], there was no longer anyone with either the ability to offer or accept criticism[ii].

Style. Wording, tone, privacy/audience etc.

“It's not what you say, but how you say it”- is a view that I don't think is true all the time, but it does have some merit. The commandment in Leviticus (19:17) to rebuke, rebuke your fellow[iii]4”, is followed with a caution “and do not bear sin because of him” which is interpreted as demanding concern, in some circumstances, about humiliating the person being criticised.

Being wrong – asking a question

If we approach what appears to be a problematic situation with a recognition that we might not have all the facts, we can carry our responsibility to stand up for justice without judging others unfairly. Our patriarch Jacob sets a friendly tone and uses the approach of asking a question of a group of shepherds that seems to be workers, idle on the job. “My brothers, where are you from?” Jacob begins, after some small talk he observes “The day is still long, it is not time to gather the flocks, give your sheep some drink and go take your sheep to pasture[iv].” The shepherds explain that they are unable to carry out their next task without more help because there is a big stone on top of the well that can only be moved when their colleagues arrive so they can all give water to their sheep. No harm done.

Unresolved issues- One cost of silence

A sad, but rarely discussed episode in the lives of the biblical Rachel and Leah occurs when their brothers and father (Laban) become resentful of Jacob's prosperity. Their brothers are heard saying to anyone, but the accused party “Jacob took (stole) everything that belonged to our father , and from what belonged to our father he created all this honour[v]”. Jacob notices, Laban's face, “and it is clearly not the same as it was yesterday, and the day before that”. He had accepted the slander (Lashon Harah- evil tongue) against Jacob[vi] without bothering to check with Jacob about his side of the story. The opposite of “when a man sins against another man, he should not hate him and be silent...it is a Mitzvah to notify him and say, why did you do this to me?[vii]”

Jacob and his wives, Rachel and Leah discuss the need to leave the employ and town of Laban over his on-going financial mistreatment on the part of their father. The two daughters/wives reply, “Do we still have any part or inheritance in our fathers house? Did he not consider us as strangers to him, selling us and eating our money”. I find it very significant, that neither sister ever said anything to Laban about their hurt feelings or anger about being sold to Jacob. Jacob also does not talk to Laban about his complains about the financial dealings, instead explaining only to his wives that Laban changed “my wages, 10 times”.

Unlikely to be heard

To rebuke someone involves some hope that it might help. The Talmud states that just as we should say words of rebuke that will be heard, it is a Mitzvah (Commandment) not to say that which will not be heard[viii]. As a Christian Australian Member of Parliament, Shayne Neummann, pointed out to me a while back, it is hard to imagine Jacob having any confidence in talking to Laban after he substituted his beloved Rachel with Leah. Especially, considering that when Jacob first protests to Laban “Why did you deceive me”, instead of an apology, Laban attacks Jacob cleverly saying “it is not done thus in our place, the younger before the older”, implying like you who usurped the right of your older brother Esau. Clearly, Laban's rebuke of Jacob is driven by an ulterior motive, seeking to justify his own wrong doing. A caveat on the principle of rebuke that will not be accepted is that in some cases where our silence can be seen as acquiescence, we need to consider the wider audience, not just the perpetrator.

Conclusion

There is a western idea that talking is always good.  I think it is ethical and wise to consider the situation and benefit or harm that will be caused by either speaking or being silent.  

---

[i] The content of the Talmud was developed between approximately 100 bc to the year 300 CE

[ii] Arachin 16b. Also discussed on www.chaburas.org/rebuke.html

[iii] Leviticus (19:17)

[iv] Genesis 29:7

[v] Genesis 31:1

[vi] Seforno

[vii] Mimonedes, Yad, hilchot Deot, 6:6

[viii] Talmud, Yevamot 65b

Mobbed. Dealing with strong community opposition - Shelach

I sometimes find it challenging to deal with the tension of holding a particular position when people that I feel connected with strongly hold a different view. I recognise that as a Rabbi and bridge builder this is my obligation and privilege, what can my tradition tell me about this challenge?

Seeking Evidence after loss of faith

Moses led a people who had blindly followed him into the desert[1] but were struggling to maintain their faith in God’s plan to take them to the Promised Land. Moses finds himself approached by his nation[2], elders and youth all mixed together, the young pushing the elders, the elders pushing the leaders[3] all demanding that spies be sent to investigate the land that God had promised.

Reluctant approval

Although sending the spies’ mission technically had divine approval[4] and the ideas was ‘good in the eyes of Moses’[5], commentary tells a different story. “When they first approached Moses he did not want (it), he told them “God has already assured us”, the Jews said that the Nations know we are coming and were hiding their money (and the reason they wished to send spies was to find out about the treasures)… this way Moses fell into their trap”[6].

God tells Moses, “Send men for yourself,…[7]”, do this if you want to but not by God’s command[8]. “If it was from Me, we would not be sending them as they (the Jews) should have relied on Me”[9]. There is a hint here that sending the spies might be good for Moses (yourself) because it will prolong his life as the Jews wander the desert for 40 years as a punishment, but it will not be good for the people[10].

Destined to fail

The mission seems to have been designed by God with the expectation of failure. The spies must be leaders, so they will be considered important by the Jews “so that they should not say (after it all goes wrong) if we had sent important men, their hearts would not have melted, (or) they would not have slandered[11]. Moses also has a premonition of the risks. He changed Joshua’s name from the original Hoshea[12] so that God should save him from the counsel of the (other) spies[13].

Character of the mission

There is also some semantics at work here about what the nature of the mission. Three different words[14] are used to describe the work of the spies, “V’yaturu”[15] ויתרו  , V’yachpru[16] ויחפרו  and Vayraglu[17] וירגלו .

When Moses recounts the Jews disorderly approach to Moses the word is V’yachpru, which is related to the word חרפה disgrace, and find reasons not to go to the land[18].  It can be related to לחפור to dig and search for hidden things[19], the excuse that tricked Moses into thinking this was not about doubting God.  The word God uses when He gives grudging approval to Moses for the mission is V’yaturu, which means simply to explore. The words used to describe what the spies actually did is referred to as וירגלו Vayraglu[20] which has associations with maligning[21], gossip and telling lies about the land[22], although variation of the word “V’Yaturu[23] are also used. Neither of these words says anything about the treasure hunt it was ostensibly about[24].  

Defusing the pressure by caving in

Moses had hoped to defuse the situation by agreeing to the demand and that when they see his confidence in allowing them to check out the land they would trust him and drop their demand[25]. Instead they call his bluff. Moses admits to his agreeing to the mission in his reflection in Deuteronomy, but his reason for agreeing was based on the way they approached him and the fact that “all of you agreed about this”[26].

Crown Heights Riots and the alleged ‘cave-in’, “Let them vent their rage”

In preparing this I thought of another alleged ‘cave in’, that until last Saturday night, I believed had occurred during the Crown Heights Riots in August 1991. I had flown back from Australia to NY only to learn that an Australian Jew, Yankel Rosenbaum was murdered by a mob of black youth in the neighbourhood that I grew up in. This followed the tragic death of a black child named Gavin Cato, in a car accident involving a Jewish driver. The whole community was shaken with violence and a feeling of terror. I got off an international flight, came home, but left town within hours. Almost a week later, when I returned, there was still broken glass on the streets. Mayor David Dinkins, who happened to be New York’s first black mayor at the time, was believed to have said of the black rioters “let them vent their rage”.

The accusation still stands as fact in the Wikipedia entry on the Crown Heights riots[27] and is claimed to be based on. But I learned when I began to researched this and read a summary of the government initiated report[28] that the report found that although Dinkins failed in many respcets, it determined that there was no evidence to support the most extreme charges that the Mayor had instructed the police to let marauding youths "vent" their rage. It is sad to only find out 20 years later that I believed a discredited accusation. Perhaps I was also swept away with “group sentiment”. On the other hand there must have been other “leaders” who fanned the flames and told angry young mobs what they wanted to hear. They stand condemned.

An Insider silences the mob (at least temporarily)

In contrast to “leaders” who follow their followers like dogs who appear to lead as they run ahead of their master but are always looking over their shoulders[29], Caleb stands as a role model of standing up to the mob. “Caleb quieted the people for Moses, he said “we will go up, and inherit the land, as we can do it”[30]. He managed to get people’s attention, because he pretended to be on the side of the mob. “Is this all the son of Amram (Moses) did?!” he called out. The people expected more denigration of Moses so they became quiet to hear Caleb.  Then Caleb said, “He took us out of Egypt, he split the sea for us, and fed us the Manna, if he said ‘make ladders and ascent to the sky’, would we not listen to him[31]?!”

Caleb is praised as having a “different spirit”[32] to the other spies. Many years later Caleb reflects on being “40 years old when Moses the servant of God sent me…and I responded as in my heart”[33].  Joining the dots commentary suggests that he spoke what was in his heart but this was different to what came out of his mouth in his conversations with the other spies[34]. “It appears that when he was with them, until they arrived back to the camp he agreed with them so that they won’t kill him”[35].  Having preserved his status as a member of the group, he was later able to challenge its thinking. In the end he was unable to persuade the community, they persisted in their view, but he took a stand for what was right.

Conclusion

We see clearly the difficulty of the leader to stare down the mob but also how opportunities are sometimes there right from the start to read between the lines that caving in to the demands is essentially a bad idea. We see the temptation to tactically yield to the mob in a small way, in the hope that it will come right in the end. We also see the great value of an insider staring down the mob and the need not to squander “insider” status by showing your cards too early, but rather to take a stand at the right time. This does not make it all easy, but it is useful to understand the dynamic, the challenges and that there is a way through, some of the time at least. 

---

[1] Jeremiah 2:2 “I remember for you the affection of your youth, the love of your espousals; how you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown”

[2] Deuteronomy 1:22

[3] Rashi to Deuteronomy 1:22

[4] Numbers 13:2

[5] Deuteronomy 1:23

[6] Yalkut Shimoni 742

[7] Numbers 13:2

[8] Rashi

[9] Bchor Shor, Rabbi Joseph (born Circa 1140 Northern France)

[10] Klei Yakar, Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim ben Aharon Lunschitz, 1550-1619 Poland)  

[11] Bchor Shor

[12] Numbers 13:16

[13] Talmud Sotah 34b and Rashi to Numbers 13:16, alternative explanations are offered for the name change, 1) as a security measure because Joshua had been a minister of the army in the war against Amalek, so that he not be recognised (Tur), or that the name change had not happened at this time and was unrelated (Bchor Shor).

[14] Klei Yakar on Numbers 13:2

[15] Numbers 13:2

[16] Deuteronomy 1:22

[17] Deuteronomy 1:24

[18] Talmud Sotah 34b and Klei Yakar

[19] Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 1:22

[20] Deuteronomy 1:24

[21] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel (Hillel's most distinguished pupil Talmud Sukkah, 28a- last century BC)  and Pirush Yonatan on Deuteronomy 1:24

[22] Klei Yakar

[23] Numbers 13:21, 25, 32

[24] Ohr Hachayim on Deuteronomy 1:24

[25] Rashi on Deuteronomy 1:20

[26] Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 1:24

[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_riot#cite_note-25

[28] http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/21/us/crown-heights-report-overview-crown-heights-study-finds-dinkins-police-fault.html The report was overseen by Richard H. Girgenti, the state's Director of Criminal Justice. Some might argue that the report was commissioned by the democrat led state government, I think Director of Criminal Justice  must have has a significant degree of independence as can be seen by fact that the report was generally very critical of Dinkins.

[29] Talmud Sanhedrin 97a as interpreted by Rabbi Gershon Stern, Yalkut Hagershuni, quoted in Insights a Talmudic Treasury Weiss, R. Saul, (1990) Feldheim, Jerusalem/New York, p.301

[30] Numbers 13:30

[31] Talmud Sotah 35a and Rashi

[32] Numbers 14:24

[33] Joshua 14:7

[34] Midrash Tanchuma, and Rashi

[35] Radak on Joshua 14:7

The Violence of Silence! v.s. Golden Silence - Rebuke in Vayetze

Ipswich, QLD has not always been known for its tolerance, this was the area that was represented in parliament by Pauline “we will be swamped by Asian's”- Hanson MP. It is argued that the fact that Hanson was not strongly repudiated by the Prime Minister of the day signalled to bigots that it was ok to discriminate and contributed to increased prejudice in the community. Yesterday I was in Ipswich for bridge building work alongside Mr. Shayne Neumann the local Member of Parliament, and while grabbing some Kosher lunch in the local supermarket I got a call about yet another Government decision that would limit religious freedom, mainly impact on Muslims and I fear will send another signal that the “real-White” Australians are taking back “their country.” How should I respond? More broadly, the following is a general (but incomplete) consideration of the issue of rebuke, especially as it relates to the section of the Torah being read this week.

Do not rebuke the scoffer, lest he hate you, rebuke a wise person and he will love you¹.

Problems with silence and with speaking out

If we are silent in the face of apparent injustice, we could seen as complicit in it. Talking about our grievances, might result in resolution, or at least give us the feeling that we did what we can. The negatives of silence, need to be considered against the problems arising out of speaking out. In some situations, our critique can be ill-informed, driven by unconscious and unsavoury motives, cause unnecessary embarrassment, or fail to achieve anything apart from defensiveness, hostility or even escalated offending behaviour and “push-back”. The Talmud comments about the people in it's own time², there was no longer anyone with either the ability to offer or accept criticism³.

Style. Wording, tone, privacy/audience etc.

“It's not what you say, but how you say it”- is a view that I don't think is true all the time, but it does have some merit. The commandment in Leviticus (19:17) to rebuke, rebuke your fellow⁴”, is followed with a caution “and do not bear sin because of him” which is interpreted as demanding concern, in some circumstances, about humiliating the person being criticised.

Motive- "uhn negl" (no fingernails) & Permission

Chassidim have a tradition of offering criticism to each other. This would usually be done in the context of a “Farbrengen”, an informal group sitting together, eating herring, pickles, drinking vodka (usually but not always in strict moderation), for the purpose of storytelling, singing and reflection. The setting and the fact of the participants sitting down together already provides implied permission for being given negative feedback. An important principle for the critic was to ensure he did not do it with “fingernails”, meaning he had to search his own heart to see if there were other motives at work, eg. Anger, hostility, desire to put the other down, rather than pure desire to help the listener improve.

Being wrong – asking a question

If we approach what appears to be a problematic situation with a recognition that we might not have all the facts, we can carry our responsibility to stand up for justice without judging other unfairly. Jacob, sets a friendly tone and uses the approach of asking a question of a group of shepherds that seems to be workers, idle on the job. “My brothers, where are you from?” Jacob begins, after some small talk he observes “The day is still long, it is not time to gather the flocks, give your sheep some drink and go take your sheep to pasture⁵.” They explain explain that they are unable to carry out their next task without more help because there is a big stone on top of the well, that can only be moved when their colleagues arrive so they can all give water to their sheep. No harm done.

Unresolved issues- One cost of silence

A sad, but rarely discussed episode in the lives of the biblical Rachel and Leah occurs when their brothers and father (Laban) become resentful of Jacob's prosperity. Their brothers are heard saying to anyone, but the accused party “Jacob took (stole) everything that belonged to our father , and from what belonged to our father he created all this honour⁶”. Jacob notices, Laban's face, “and it is clearly not the same as it was yesterday, and the day before that”. He had accepted the slander (Lashon Harah- evil tongue) against Jacob⁷ without bothering to check with Jacob about his side of the story. The opposite of “when a man sins against another man, he should not hate him and be silent...it is a Mitzvah to notify him and say, why did you do this to me?”⁸

Jacob and his wives, Rachel and Leah discuss the need to leave the employ and town of Laban over his on-going financial mistreatment on the part of their father. The two daughters/wives reply, “Do we still have any part or inheritance in our fathers house? Did he not consider us as strangers to him, selling us and eating our money”. I find it very significant, that neither sister ever said anything to Laban about their hurt feelings or anger about being sold to Jacob. Jacob also does not talk to Laban about his complains about the financial dealings, instead explaining only to his wives that Laban changed “my wages, 10 times”.

Unlikely to be heard

To rebuke someone involves some hope that it might help. The Talmud states that just as we should say words of rebuke that will be heard, it is a Mitzvah (Commandment) not to say that which will not be heard⁹. As Shayne Neummann pointed out to me yesterday in Ipswich, it is hard to imagine Jacob having any confidence in talking to Laban after he substituted his beloved Rachel with Leah. Especially, considering that when Jacob first protests to Laban “Why did you deceive me”, instead of an apology, Laban attacks Jacob cleverly saying “it is not done thus in our place, the younger before the older”, implying like you who usurped the right of your older brother Esau. Clearly, Laban's rebuke of Jacob is driven by an ulterior motive, seeking to justify his own wrong doing. On the other hand, in cases where our silence can be seen as acquiescence, we need to consider the wider audience, not just the perpetrator.

Judging too favourably

While avoiding a rush to judgement is generally admirable. There are times when there is a need to speak out in defence of justice. As the saying goes, “If someone is spitting in your face, don't say it's raining”. A talmudic story about the gangster-turned sage Resh Lakish travelling with two rabbis to see the process for deciding whether to add an extra month to a particular Jewish Sabbatical year, when the land was not meant to be worked. On their way, they repeatedly see members of the priestly clan, the Cohanim, first ploughing, then working in a vineyard. Resh Lakish is outraged but his companions, rationalise it with various excuses. When they arrive to the attic where the meeting was to be held, they offered Resh Lakish to go up the ladder first, then promptly removed the ladder stranding him upstairs. They held the meeting downstairs without him, obviously frustrated with his unwillingness to turn a blind eye¹⁰. The funny thing is that the two other sages have been forgotten, while Resh Lakish is still greatly respected today.

Conclusion

There are more sources and further evidence that I have not included in this. I think on balance, there are times for speaking out and times for silence, in the case of the Government decision today, the right thing to do is to speak out about religious freedom and the need for responsible leadership giving no support to bigotry. Anyone who could have stopped another person from committing a sin by rebuking but failed to do so is held accountable for that sin.¹¹

1Proverbs 9:8

2The content of the Talmud was developed between approximately 100 bc to the year 300 CE.

3Arachin 16b. Also discussed on www.chaburas.org/rebuke.html

4The commandment in Leviticus (19:17) to rebuke, rebuke your fellow, and do not bear sin because of him

5Genesis 29:7

6Genesis 31:1

7Seforno

8Mimonedes, Yad, hilchot Deot, 6:6

9Talmud, Yevamot 65b)

10Talmud Sanhedrin, 26a. For the rest of this story, http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_26.html

11Maimonedes, Yad, Laws of Deot, 6:7.