Crushing or talking with? Chukat

I retaliated. I really didn’t mean to, but X aggressively pressured me to do something and without thinking, I verbally fought back. X was a little hurt. It didn’t need to play out that way. My starting point for this reflection is concern about excessive harshness and punishment.

Author, Dr. Richard Schwartz observed that we treat others the same way that we treat those parts of ourselves that challenge us. “In our attempts to control what we consider to be disturbing thoughts and emotions, we just end up fighting, disciplining … or feeling ashamed of those impulses …[i]” Religious teachings, including some in the Torah, seem to be designed to crush parts of ourselves. I want to examine these and consider alternative ways of reading them.

In this week’s Torah reading we have the strange ritual of burning a dead red cow[ii] to purify anyone who has come in contact with a dead person. It is introduced as a “Chuka”, a statute that God commanded. Commentary elaborates on the idea of a Chuka, which has also been translated as decree[iii]. “It is a decree from before Me; you have no permission to ruminate about it[iv]”. We are forbidden to ever question this divine command. That is harsh! It seems like the purpose of the Chuka, with no logical explanation, is about a process designed to beat us into submission[v].

The idea that crushing that part in us that thinks for itself or lusts after permitted or forbidden pleasures also comes up in one attempt to explain the mystery of the red cow. The animal is seen as a symbol of the material aspects of life. The burning of the cow represents a person who subjugates the material elements within him or herself. This is hinted at by the fact that the ashes of the cow – now crushed and defeated – when mixed with water, causes the person sprinkled with the mixture to be regarded as spiritually pure and clean[vi].  To kill the “animal soul” is seen as a virtue[vii].

An alternative approach to the red cow is offered by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory. The symbolism of mixing the ashes of a dead animal with “living water” is a reminder that although we are all individually mortal, life continues after we die[viii]. He infers this from the fact that the law of the red cow is followed in the Torah[ix] by the deaths of Moses’ siblings. Rabbi Sacks wrote: “with great subtlety the Torah mixes law and narrative together.” We all die, “... yet life goes on, and what we began, others will continue.”

Sacks insists that Judaism is not a matter of blind obedience[x]”.  Some laws are not explained because they are meant to move us at a sub-conscious level. The ritual of the red cow is directed at what Sigmund Freud called thanatos, the death instinct[xi]. According to Freud, “a portion of the [death] instinct is diverted towards the external world and comes to light as an instinct of aggressiveness.”

Sacks insists that the red cow ritual “is a powerful statement that the holy is to be found in life, not death. Anyone who had been in contact with a dead body needed purification. Judaism contains no cult of worship of dead ancestors. Death defiles”.

Countering manifestation of the death instinct, Sacks explains, “cannot be achieved by reason alone”. Instead, he argues, rituals enable the learning to reach “into our unconscious mind and alter our instinctual responses. The result is a personality trained to see death and holiness as two utterly opposed states.”

What we have is not a ritual to beat us into submission and encourage us to berate and crush ourselves but something far more dignified. It is an invitation to engage with the text as intelligent people grappling with the great challenges of life.

Sacks has a similar approach to one of the saddest stories in the Torah. Moses was deprived of his dream to lead his people in to the Promised Land. This was due to the seemingly petty offence of using a stick to hit, rather than talking to, a rock to miraculously draw water from it[xii]. This seems excessively punitive. But to Sacks[xiii], the symbolic meaning of “hitting” at a moment that required “talking” was no small matter.

At the end of his life, Moses was leading a new generation, born in freedom in the wilderness. They were different to their parents who had spent much of their lives as slaves. Slaves understand that a stick is used for striking, which is how slave-masters compel obedience. Free people, by contrast, must be educated, informed and taught.

To put it another way, public administration academic, Holli Vah Seliskar, PHD, wrote, “people benefit most when things are done with them rather than something being done to them[xiv]”. Human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive and more likely to make positive changes in their behaviour when those in positions of authority do things with them[xv]”.

Moses using a stick instead of words was symbolic of his failure to work with the people, rather than berate[xvi] or order them around. Free human beings respond not to power but persuasion. They need to be spoken to. What Moses failed to understand was that the difference between God's command to "speak to the rock" and "strike the rock" was of the essence.

Next time I am confronted with a situation like the one with X, I hope both I and the person with whom I am talking can focus on trying to find a mutually acceptable resolution to our divergent views and needs. Hopefully, this will involve a collaborative conversation rather than punishment. Failing that, I will go with a firm but fair withdrawal from a situation that is not working, but without speaking harsh words that detract from the sacred dignity of all humans.

---

[i] Schwartz, R. C., (2021) No Bad Parts, Sounds True publishers, Boulder Colorado, p. 8

[ii] Numbers, 19:2-12

[iii] Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel of 19:2 דָא גְזֵירַת אַחְוָיַת אוֹרַיְיתָא

[iv] Rashi to Number 19:2, based on Talmud Yoma 67b; Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 7, I translated the word as ruminate

[v] See Kedushas Levi at the beginning of Parshas Chukas

[vi] Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Auzulai, (The Chidoh), Nachal Kedominm in Toras Chido, p. 130

[vii] Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 1

[viii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/healing-trauma-loss/

[ix] The red cow is discussed in Number 19, the death of Mirram and Aaron are recorded in the following chapter in 20:1 and 20:28

[x] Sacks, J. Covenant and Conversation, Number, p. 239

[xi] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/descartes-error/ See commentary by Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor 

[xii] Numbers 20:7-12

[xiii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/why-was-moses-not-destined-to-enter-the-land/

[xiv] Seliskar, H. V. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/doing-with-not-to-or-for/253464

[xv] Watchel, T. in Seliskar

[xvi] Numbers 20:10

Spirit vs Form - Kavana. Chukat

For 45 minutes I was in another zone as I combined mindfulness and meditation with my ritual morning blessings. I felt spiritually uplifted and filled with a deep gratitude for the wisdom of animals, my eyesight, having all my needs met and the dignity of clothing.

That was another morning.

This morning was a completely different story. This morning I recited the same blessings but I arrived late and feeling stressed about many things. Prayer is meant to be the "service of the heart[i]" but my mumbling this morning was just robotic compliance.

It’s now 8:53 am. I just sat down at my desk at work, but I have been on my way to the office since 7:05 after my uninspired worship. I had the wrong combination for the back gate of the Synagogue, so I missed my bus. Instead I tried the train but neglected to check the sign so I jumped on to the wrong train. 4 trains later I am finally here and I am not so sure that what matters is really love and truth, or if compliance with requirements, times and rules is actually more important than it would seem. Clearly, my work fostering acceptance and belonging depends on attending to these technicalities.

Religion can be inspiring and can engage the heart and mind, but it can also be experienced as oppressive. In our Torah reading this week we learn about the red cow that would be killed and burned; its ashes sprinkled on water to be used as part of a purification ritual[ii]. This commandment is expected to be obeyed because God has decreed it and we “have no permission to question it[iii]”. We are called to subjugate our minds to the will of God[iv] because obedience, not fulfilment is valued. 

On the other side of this argument, in this reading we hear that Moses and Aaron were reprimanded after Moses hit a rock, causing water to miraculously flow. They were instructed to speak to the rock[v] rather than hit it. The symbolism of talking to the rock vs. hitting it is instructive. Forty years earlier, Moses also drew water from a rock when he hit it by God’s command.  But four decades before, Moses and Aaron had been leading slaves; they were accustomed to being told what to do (the dominant approach, symbolized by a stick), but now they were free people. The “stick” approach was no longer needed – now it was time for a “words”.[vi]

The themes of submission vs. engagement of the heart can be discerned in some of the details of the “stick” story. Although God had instructed Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock, He also instructed him to take “the staff” along. This is puzzling: why bring a stick at all[vii]? One answer is that “The stick” they were told to bring along was the staff of Aaron that miraculously sprouted almonds[viii]. This dry piece of wood had miraculously produced water as part of the miracle of the almonds and was to be used as inspiration for the rock that was going to be asked to also produce water. The symbolism of ‘the’ stick (rather than any stick) is not of a lifeless instrument of coercion but of a fusion between obedience and engagement.

The episode with the rock follows the death of the elder sister of Moses, Miriam, from whom Moses and Aaron had previously sought advice. Perhaps her feminine influence could have helped her brothers be more alert to the nuances of God’s command?[ix]. Instead, Moses missed the subtle point about “the stick” of Aaron with the almonds and its implied message and instead hit the rock with “his (own) stick[x]”. One lesson for us from Moses’ mistake is the need for being “very settled” and attentive in carrying out instructions[xi] so that we don’t fail to achieve their purpose, rather than being rushed like Moses was, or jumping on the train without checking the board to see where it was going.

The apparently irrational ritual of the burning red cow is also complex. It has elements that can engage the heart. One theme is the quest for balance and pursuit of the middle path, which can be inferred from the inclusion of a piece of wood from a tall cedar tree and a lowly hyssop plant in the fire. It symbolizes the message that we should not be arrogant like the cedar, nor should we be too humble like the hyssop, instead we must work toward the golden mean[xii]. 

A message of our reading can be to combine the pursuit of transcendence and spiritual expression with submission to rules and rituals. In fact, I think if I was more obedient to the requirements to always pray with Kavana, to do an intentional ritual hand washing when arriving at the synagogue[xiii] and to be on time, then even on an off day, the morning blessings words of gratitude would have greater power to engage my spirit.  The social justice, inspirational side of Judaism is nurtured by the adherence to rules and rituals and the resulting refinement of the spirit and growth in God’s consciousness.  A bird needs two wings to fly, one is love that motivates our positive activity and the other is fear which motivates obedience to prohibitions and rules[xiv].

---

[i] Talmud, Taanis 2a

[ii] Numbers 19

[iii] Cited in Rashi to Numbers 19:2, the ritual of the red heifer is the ultimate example of the Chuka category commandments which are not understandable.

[iv] The words “this is the statue of the Torah” is also taken to mean that it would be better for a person to treat all the laws of the Torah as unexplainable commandments rather than try to find reasons for them- R. Mendel of Kotzk, quoted by R. Zeev of Strikov, in Greenberg, A, Y, (1992) Torah Gems, Y Orenstien/Yavneh Publishing Tel Aviv, this is consistent with the emphasis in Chabad Chasidism on Bittul, self-nullification. There is another very strong side of Chasidism that emphasises self-refinement and spiritual engagement.

[v] Numbers 20:8

[vi] Sacks, (2009) Chief Rabbi Jonathan, Future Tense, Hodder & Stoughton London

[vii] Klei Yakar

[viii] Numbers 17:17-23

[ix] Ralbag makes the connection with Miriam ‘s death and the loss of her advice, which he assumes was frequently sought, he does not refer to the feminine aspect which is my own addition

[x] Numbers 20:11

[xi] Ralbag

[xii] Seforno on Numbers 19:2

[xiii] The custom I am familiar with is for Jews to wash their hands when arriving at the Synagogue. Typical orthodox synagogues will have a wash basin near the entrance, but technically one can ritually wash one’s hands at home. Not doing it again at the synagogue is a missed opportunity for a “kavana” enhancing ritual

[xiv] Tanya

Submission Season: Chukat & Korach

On Monday morning, Sheikh Ahmed, my team and I discussed submission and assertiveness with Western Sydney, Lebanese Muslim, teenage boys who were fasting as part of Ramadan. Just before this month of fasting began, I joined a priest on a panel with Soner Coruhlu, another sheikh, who explained the spiritual side of fasting. He put fasting in the context of the inner struggle between the ego and emotions, on the one hand, and submission to God and following higher callings on the other.

In Western culture, we seem to value asserting oneself rather than submission. In Australian culture, we celebrate egalitarianism and irreverence. At the same time, these boys, like everyone else, are expected to submit to the rule of law and the obligations of citizenship.  We talked about the Magna Carta - how even governments must submit to the authority of the courts, and rule in a way that respects the rights of the people.

On Monday night, a Muslim man, a self-confessed “idiot at times (1)”, asserted on national television that the government “just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL (2)”. This has predictably caused outrage in the Australian media, and inflamed tensions. Living with people with diverse needs and standards, it is necessary to consider carefully how and when we either assert ourselves or submit to the will of others. 

I have been thinking about the limits of a self-assertive approach. In the course of my work, I found myself confronted by a person who defied my guidance.  He told a personal story, with a political reference, to a group of students in a context in which this was inappropriate.  When I gently pointed out to him what I thought was his oversight, he asserted his own view and told me that the political aspect of his story was intentional.  The fact that I am a leader in the field of cross-cultural bridge-building, counted for nothing. Unfortunately, he saw no need to accept any guidance.  In contrast to this, I shared an anecdote with the boys about how I submitted to the guidance of an Aboriginal elder, which, although hard at the time, I am very happy about after the fact.

In the current Torah readings, there is a strong message about submission. Last week, we read an extreme story promoting the virtue of “followership”: a man, named Korach, who refused to submit to the authority of Moses, was swallowed up by the earth as punishment (3). 

This week, we read about a ritual involving the slaughter and burning of a red cow, as a means of purification, after contact with death (4).  Death can be interpreted as symbolic - being completely disconnected from God (5). The ritual of the red cow is seen as a commandment without any rational explanation that we are forbidden “to think about”, or question (6).

This red cow had to be one that had never borne a yoke (7). The yoke is a potent symbol representing submission to God’s demands, just as an ox would accept the burden placed on its shoulders and comply with the demand to pull a plough. This symbolism can be interpreted in two opposite ways. Firstly, it can be interpreted that the Jews had thrown off the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, so they needed atonement through an animal that was likewise without a yoke (8).  Alternatively, it could be interpreted as atonement by the Jews for their inappropriate submission to the golden calf (9) - they accepted its yoke, and would now be redeemed by a yoke-less and, perhaps, symbolically assertive cow.

One of the interesting questions raised by one of the boys during the discussion, was whether it should still be considered as submission if one wants to submit. The sheikh and I both thought the answer is yes.

In the process of the preparation of the red cow, there is a high level of intentionality. The burning must be done “before his eyes (10)”: the priest must not be involved in any other task (11), but continue to look until the animal is reduced to ashes (12). One could not perform the ritual with two cows simultaneously as this would divide the attention of the priest (13). If a high priest performed this ritual, he would have to remove his regular, elaborate garments, including the breast plate with the diamonds inscribed with the names of the tribes, and perform the ritual wearing simple, white garments.  His thoughts must be focused on this ritual (14). Submission is not about the self being absent, nor is it about being weak and just caving in or shutting down. Instead, we are called to submit mindfully.  This is what happens in loving relationships between parents and children, and husbands and wives. The Torah points to broader applications of this gracious way of being. 

There will be times when assertiveness is the correct stance. There are other times that call for some give and grace. A season for submission is an opportunity to highlight this.

1)    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/zaky-mallah-i-stand-by-what-i-said-on-qa-the-public-needs-to-hear-it
2)    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/zaky-mallahs-qa-comments-a-wakeup-call-for-radicalisation-debate-20150623-ghv29p.html#ixzz3dvhW9SxY
3)    Numbers 16
4)    Numbers 19:1-14
5)      Schneerson, Rabbi MM, Likutei Sichos, Vol 4, p.1058
6)      Rashi
7)      Numbers 19:2
8)      Bamidbar Zuta, from a manuscript, cited in Kasher, R. Menachem, Torah Shlaima, vol. 11, p. 25
9)      Midrash Agadah cited in Kasher, R. Menachem, Torah Shlaima, vol. 11, p. 23
10)      Numbers 19:5
11)      Ralbag, p.97 Mosad Rav Kook edition
12)      Sifrei Zuta,
13)      Ralbag, based on Tosefta
14)      Ralbag

“Pelting the Rebellious Son” The Individual, Indulgence, & Submission

Labelled for resuse
From David Westerfield blog

The individual, our rights, needs and even desires are regarded as highly important in the modern western approach. Follow your heart, is a catch cry. There are societies that put much more emphasis on the communal interest, with the individual coming second. I live in both worlds. I sometimes feel indulgent, slack and “soft” in comparison with my mother, for whom the question seems almost never to be “what do I want?” but instead “what is my duty?” I wonder about the merit of sacrificing the needs/wants of the individual for the greater good and the merit of submission to a higher authority. Yet I also worry about the harshness some might employ in controlling the indulgent “inner child”. This is starkly symbolised by the proposition of an execution of the “rebellious son” by his parents handing him over to the community to kill him by pelting him with stones.  

Rebellion, a Capital Offence?

Let us start with the Torah’s text about the “execution of a rebellious son”. The Torah states:
“If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place.

And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a (wine) guzzler."

And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear” [i] .

This law is generally assumed to be a theoretical one that has never been implemented and will never be acted on[ii]. Even in its theoretical form it is completely at the parents’ discretion, which is one more argument for its impracticability[iii]. Still this law exists on the books as a moral teaching, which I find difficult to live with.  What might this teaching be?

More important than love?

Several possibilities are suggested. One our love of God overriding the “strongest love in the world, that between a father and son, or that of a mother to her son, in spite of this when the parents see their son straying to a bad way, it is forbidden for them to have mercy for him and they must restrain their love (for their son) out of love of God and to bring their son to the house of stoning, their love should be like the love of our father Abraham (Upon him be peace) who held back his love and tied up his son on the altar[iv]”. 

This interpretation is disturbing in how far it suggests this should be taken. I wonder about a more general message about transcending our own inner world and “what feels right” to us to, not necessarily to act against our own conscience, but simply to do things that don’t resonate for us out of compliance with “the will of God”, or fall in behind the agendas and priorities of others in our communities. It is frustrating to watch people fixate on their personal vision who are unwilling to “take their eye of the ball” for long enough to give anyone else any assistance.  

Discipline not Indulgence

Other interpretations focus on various aspects of the rebellious son. The word “Moreh” which means rebellious is the same word for teach or show. “He wants to teach his father and mother knowledge, that his way is the right way, and this is the way of youth to imagine that they are the wise ones and they know how to conduct themselves…the son wants to educate his father[v]”. Gluttony is defined as involved theft of money[vi], which is then used to buy wine and meat eaten half raw[vii] in bad company outside the family home. The concern here is with excessive indulgence which is seen as corrupting. It is contrasted with a custom that when one hosts guests one should leave some space empty of plates[viii].  Of course this can be taken too far, we must remember that “stoning the indulgent” child is a threat that is never to be carried out!” There are so many delightful things in the world that God has created for our enjoyment as long as we partake of it in moderation.

There is also the danger that in being overly harsh toward ourselves we become hardened and cruel. A lovely story involves a Rabbi disapproving of a rich man eating very simply, hard bread etc. The Rabbi told him to eat steak and drink fine wine. This way he will recognise that the poor at least deserve bread and other basics, if he only gives himself stale bread, what crumbs will he offer the needy?

Submission to “The Official Position”

In contrast to the “out of control rebellious youth”, there is the case of the rebellious elder[ix]. This is a top level scholar who having arrived at a different conclusion to the majority of the highest religious court called the Sanhedrin, dares to defy the official ruling and guides people to behave in accordance with his own view. This is so that there not be “many Torah’s”, and serves to unify the Jews in their observance of the Torah.

The requirement to submit to the official position played out in the poignant story of Rabbi Joshua who believed that the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, was on a different day to the one decided on by the majority and the president of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Gamliel. Rabbi Gamliel demanded the Rabbi Joshua publicly demonstrate his acceptance of the ruling by appearing before him with his staff and money bag. This would be violation of the holy day according to Rabbi Joshua’s opinion[x]. This must have been very hard for Rabbi Joshua. This incident and the disrespect to Rabbi Joshua later contributed to Rabbi Gamliel being deposed as president. There is a balance one must find here.

Judging texts and Individual Dignity

This material is also useful when we are tempted to judge the sacred texts of other faiths, not to simply read a text without considering the traditional interpretations. It is also important to consider seemingly unrelated teachings to gain a broader perspective. Reading the examples above could create the impression that the Torah is concerned only with the “greater good” and not with the rights of the individual, or even the obligations we have toward others. This is not true, of course. I am struck by the symbolism of the Torah’s command to a creditor seeking an object as surety for a loan from a poor person, “In the outside, you will stand[xi]”! The creditor has a right to demand an object from the borrower, but he dare not violate the sanctity of the vulnerable man’s home. According to one traditional translation, the lender is actually instructed to stand in the marketplace where the borrower will meet him with an object of surety of his choosing[xii]. Even a court officer is forbidden to enter the home of the borrower[xiii]!

Conclusion

There are several pathways to virtue. One relates to prioritising God and this has led many to do beautiful things. At the same time, there are many atheists who are highly ethical decent people. Another valuable path involves moderation, and still there are highly disciplined, dieting exercising self-centred even cruel people. In contrast there are some “go with the flow”, sensual ice cream eating people who are generous and loving. Jews are now in the month of reflection, Elul, leading up to the Day of Atonement. There is a lot to think about, including how gentle to be or not be with our indulgent inner child.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 21:19-21

[ii] Talmud Sanhedrin 71a, there is a dissenting view that this law was meant to be implemented

[iii] Maharsha on Sanhedrin, cited in Nachshoni

[iv] Rabbenu Bchaya

[v] Abarbenel (1437-1508)

[vi] Talmud Sanhedrin

[vii] Meam Loez

[viii] Shulchan Aruch 151

[ix] Deuteronomy 17:10-11

[x] Talmud Rosh Hashana 24b-25a

[xi] Deuteronomy 24:11

[xii] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[xiii] Talmud Bava Metziah 113b, this is one opinion, the other opinion is that a court officer is allowed to enter the home.