Blasphemy discussion on ABC TV Compass

This week, I joined Sheik Wesam Charkawi, the Venerable Thubten Chokyigoing and David Marr on a panel discussing Blasphemy which goes to air on ABC TV’s, The Moral Compass, on Sunday night 22 March 6:30pm. The question behind the discussion is about the right price for interfaith harmony. Do we need to trade off freedom of expression to get along? Many people think that that price is too high. They argue that free speech is sacrosanct and Muslims and others just have to cope with insults. Many Muslims and others don’t agree that ridicule of religion should be allowed. I think a reasonable compromise would legally allow ridicule in the interest of free exploration of truth but would also develop ethical conventions of tact and cost benefit analysis that weigh up the expected benefit of mockery against the hurt caused.  The following are some of my thoughts on Blasphemy in this context.

A question at the core of a modern discussion of blasphemy was suggested by a member of the audience in advance of the program: “Is it blasphemy if the person is not a believer?” Over 800 years ago Maimonides stated that one who hears someone curse God must tear their clothing in mourning just like one would if a parent died. Yet this law only applies if the person blaspheming is Jewish, but if the blasphemer is an idol worshipper one is not required to perform this display of grief (1). This ruling is also confirmed in the code of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch (2), and extends this to also apply to a lapsed Jew (3). One commentator takes a practical view of this, “if we were to tear our clothes for (the blasphemy uttered by) idol worshipers, all the clothing will be full of tears (4)”.

I place great value on the freedom to believe differently and to express my beliefs. In the middle ages Jewish scholars would be invited to the royal court for staged debates with Christian leaders. Debating religion in the presence of a Christian monarch was dangerous because the Jew could easily be accused of blasphemy and put to death. The freedom for people to express their beliefs is imperative and must be permitted. While speaking against the God one believes in is forbidden in Judaism, this is not the case for the beliefs of others. A theme I explored in my blog post on Mockery (5). 

The British writer and comedian, Stephen Fry, has recently shared the angry attack he would unleash on God if he ever met Him on account of all the suffering he created in the world. The Archbishop of Canterbury has rightly defended his right to express these views. The substance, rather than the style, of Fry’s comments about questioning God would be embraced by some religious Jews. A dramatic example of this was at the huge outdoor funeral of a Rabbi and his wife who were murdered by terrorists in Mumbai in 2008. Kfar Chabad’s Rabbi Ashkenazi cried out bitterly in the voice of their orphaned son Moshe, Lamah! Why? Why? The words echoed off the hills. After Rabbi Ashkenazi, another Rabbi asserted that we had no right to ask why. Yet, Moses himself argues with God, asking why did you do evil to this people (6)? 

Alongside our considerations of the need to protect free speech, we must consider the impact on people arising out of unrestrained speech, and particularly which people are likely to be most significantly impacted (7) by our decisions to either self-censor or throw insults. I had a discussion with a group of Muslim young men in September 2012 after the media widely reported on a group of Muslim who rampaged through the city of Sydney demonstrating against a film mocking the prophet Mohammed. The reports included an image of a child holding up a sign that said behead those who insult the prophet. There was an intense backlash against Muslims. I thought the boys would feel bad about being misrepresented, or stereotyped. I was surprised by the deep personal hurt they felt from the film, ‘why do people mock our religion and prophet’ they asked. It was an intense sadness, rather than anger. We can’t avoid offending some people some of the time, but if we are considering hurting people, the benefits must outweigh the harm. Otherwise we would do well to tactfully refrain from the mockery.  I think this is an appropriate price to pay for preserving interfaith harmony. Essentially it is what most of us are doing already.

Notes:
1) Maimonides, Yad Hachazaka, laws of Idol Worship, chapter 2:10
2)  Karo, R. Yosef, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 340:37
3) Rabbi Moshe Iserrlis- Rama, comment on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 340:37
4) Turei Zahav, TAZ,  Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 340:22
5) http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/mockery.html
6) Exodus 5:23
7) Gross-Schaefer, Arthur, A Suggested Strategy for Ethical Decision Making, Reform Judaism Magazine, November 1997

Mockery

At times like this, murder casts a long shadow over any discussion about the mockery of religious symbols. Before I comment on mockery, I cry out emphatically: all life is sacred! Murder is evil! This is true, regardless of the motives or the identity of the victims, be they people who drew cartoons, a Muslim policeman protecting the cartoonists, Jewish shoppers, Nigerians, Assyrians in Iraq or Syrians. Closer to home, I am outraged by the domestic violence murder of Leila Alavi by her ex-husband. Enough! Enough! It is disappointing to me that some of these murders have failed to galvanize the world or communities while the free speech of the cartoonists is front and centre. Clearly, the issue of free speech relates to broader questions about extremist interpretations of Islam and, more broadly and problematically, to Muslim and non-Muslim relations in general.

As a bridge- builder and a student of the Torah, I think it is worth exploring the issue of mockery.  I am in two minds about this issue and it seems that traditional teachings are as well. The bottom line for me is that we need to uphold freedom of expression as well as peace and interfaith respect. I don’t know where to draw the lines and I don’t have the answer, but I see value in exploring the question.

The case for mockery:
Abraham is a hero to Jews (1) and Muslims (2) for his mockery. In a story that is found in both traditions, Abraham smashed the idols in an idol- worshipping society and then satirised the people’s beliefs by sarcastically setting up the scene to make it appear that the biggest idol smashed the smaller ones.  Rather than criticize him for his rudeness or disrespect of the religious symbols of his neighbours, we see this violent expression of intolerance of “wrong religion” as virtuous. Elijah, the prophet, sarcastically taunted the worshippers of Baal at a public gathering. "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. [Perhaps] he is chatting or he is chasing [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken (3)”. Perhaps, God Himself used some harsh humour. When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, he told him that there will be resistance, followed by miracles.  “I will place my signs (or miracles) in his midst and so that you will tell in the ears of your sons and your son’s son, how I toyed (4) with Egypt…(5)”. Humour and mockery can be a tool in the battle of ideas. Because we value truth, we must allow cartooning and satire as one means of teasing out the truth.

The case against mockery:
Despite the value of robust pursuit of truth, Moses seemed to call for tact toward the religious sensibilities of the Egyptians. When Pharaoh suggested that the Hebrews could worship in Egypt, Moses objected to this, stating that “it is not right to do it like this” (6). Moses had two reasons for his assertion that is was “not right”, both relating to the fact that, at that time, Jewish worship involved slaughtering sheep which were worshipped by the Egyptians. One reason was “on principle and out of respect… being that they worship the constellation of Aries and sheep are holy for them, it is not proper to denigrate their faith in their faces… the second, and a separate reason, was the danger of a violent response by the Egyptians”. The respect that Moses calls for, is not an absolute principle of interfaith respect. A short time after Moses asserts the inappropriateness of the Hebrews’ disrespect for the Egyptian God, the Hebrews are instructed to slaughter a lamb for each family (8). Tact, it would seem, is more important in some circumstances than others.

Response to Mockery:
There can be no justification for murder as a response to blasphemy on the part of non-adherents to any particular faith in a world with differences of belief. (Whether punishment for blasphemy is ok within single faith populations is a separate question.) My unqualified outrage against murder motivated by intolerance, does not prevent me from seeking to understand why someone who does not share my perspective on this, might see it differently. The Pope compared the cartoonists to someone insulting his mother and suggested that he would be tempted to punch someone like that in the nose. In the case of the possible Egyptian reaction to the provocation of seeing their gods slaughtered, Jewish scholars suggest that “by law and by right, the Egyptians would pelt us with stones (9)”. In my view, this sort of violence can be understood AND is absolutely wrong.

Conclusion: Navigating the rights and wrongs of mockery is difficult and contestable. Anger about opposing views about what to allow or not allow is to be expected, especially from those on the receiving- end of mockery. Wherever people stand on this issue, they are entitled to hold their strong views, but no one is entitled to use violence or threats of violence to impose their views on others. At the same time, no one should use this debate or the crimes of some people as justification for generalised hatred. We can agree to disagree, agreeably.

Notes:
1) Bereishit Rabba 38:13
2) Qur'an 21:51-70
3) Kings I, 18:27
4) Rashi, Chizkuni, also Ramban who refers to psalms (2:4) “the one who sits in the heaven, will laugh, the Lord will mock them”. Haemek Davar suggests that Pharaoh was given the opening to follow the path he had chosen for himself, the path of Mockery of the Hebrew slaves, but he was now the butt of the joke.  Another view is that the Hebrew word התעללתי that these commentators translate as ‘mocking’, actually means “deeds” – Rashbam or miracles – Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel
5) Exodus 10:1-2
6) Exodus 8:22
7) Malbim
8) Exodus 12:3
9) Targum Yonathan Ben Uziel, Biur Yonasan, Sechel Tov

Film, Fury, Freedom, & Fraternity. Reflections & conversation with Muslims

As an advocate for coexistence between people of diverse faiths, particularly with Muslims, I have been challenged this past week mainly by the reaction to the film. There was the violence in the streets of Sydney, deaths overseas and a short message on facebook last Thursday, by someone I will call “Khaled” that suggested in colourful language that ‘anyone who disrespects the prophet should be beheaded and forget about free speech’. I found that quite disturbing. Here are some of reflections about my conversations and experiences this week, the need for genuine openness in dialogue, including discussing the hurt caused by "the lousy film", the arguments about free speech and redoubling our commitment to coexistence and respect for all, and related themes in the Torah readings.

Betrayed?

In a sermon on Saturday, I reflected on the facebook post. I admitted that I didn’t engage young ‘Khaled’ because I thought it would be a waste of time. His stance infuriated me. Here he was enjoying the benefits of free speech in expressing a view contrary to the dominant one, yet spitting in the face of free speech. This echoed the phrase “he will bless himself in his heart, saying, "I will have peace, ”Shalom Yih-yeh lee” even if I follow my heart's desires, to add the thirsty to the watered[i]". The speaker of this phrase thinks that he can enjoy the benefits of others’ virtues while trampling on those same virtues. Like two adjoining fields, one is watered often while the other is not given any water, the “dry” field will still gain from the water of the other field[ii].

Dialogue

While on Saturday I had no access to news[iii], by evening I became aware of the day’s events involving angry young Muslims demonstrating in Sydney, with a concerned message from a member of the Jewish community. I thought that perhaps I was wrong to assume there was no point in talking with ‘Khaled’. I decided to ask him what he really thinks. Logging on to Facebook, I noticed that his tone had changed; his posts[iv] on facebook have been urging calm.

I asked him about his earlier post about the beheading and free speech. He replied, “I was upset obviously. Freedom of speech is one thing but this (is) freedom of abuse (sic) which is what they're doing. I later put that other status up (about Islamic teachings urging restraint etc see Note ii below.) after I read into the prophet's ways and later changes my mind on this matter, but still outraged."

Free Speech

One of the difficulties here is the sincerity or people on either side of the debate about this film. There are many Muslims who are adamant that such insulting material should not be allowed to be shown, while there are many who believe passionately that free speech is such a sacred principle that it must override other considerations. It is a valid debate. I am leaning toward some restriction of gratuitous disparagement of the beliefs and cherished symbols of others. I think free speech is about people being free to criticise politicians not the freedom to ridicule. The cavalier gross offensiveness of the film at the centre of this hardly deserves protection by the guardians of freedom. I commented to Khaled that I think freedom of speech comes with responsibility. People say "they are just saying what they think", my response is, it would be ok if they actually think. Often what is justified under free speech is knee-jerk prejudice.

Ridicule as a tool in interfaith truth claims
On the other side of the argument, there is a legitimate question about the merit of giving government the power to proscribe robust and offensive debate between competing belief systems. Should the prophet Elijah have been prevented from offending the worshippers of Baal when he mocks their god: “Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. [Perhaps] he is chatting or he is on a chase or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken[v]”?

I told Khaled that “I shudder to think what kind of world we would live in if we did not have checks and balances of a free press, eg. my people's holy books were burned repeatedly over the centuries. There is a serious debate about how we can protect freedom of expression which is critical for a just society and also demand respect, tact and consideration for others' beliefs and values. We need to have both Free speech and interfaith respect. How these are balanced is contested”.

Comfort with discomfort

This grappling between competing principles relates to another interpretation of the phrase “"I will have peace, ”Shalom Yih-yeh lee”.  This refers to a person who can see the logic in some demands of our faith but not others. He/she reflects on the fact that “there are many commandments that mystify me and cause me constant struggle and heart-searching…I shall therefore only observe things that appeal to my reason and that my intellect can accept. In this way I shall have peace- and suffer not inner struggle[vi]”.  Yet, we are called on to grapple with perspective that makes us uncomfortable. For both champions of almost completely unrestricted free speech as well as those for whom the honour of the prophet is of utmost importance, there is a need to try to understand what the others are thinking.

Hypocrisy

Ironically, the demonstrators, while wrong in their violence and insensitive in some of their messages have helped me gain some understanding. When I felt outraged about their suggestions that those who disagree with them should be beheaded, I was essentially championing restriction of free speech. I was taking an essentially hypocritical stance that: Yes, people should be allowed to say anything they like, except things that really offend me, eg. expressing a view about beheading people who have offensive beliefs. Of course, the demonstrators can also be accused of hypocrisy “using offensive slogans and signs, while protesting against people's right to offend[vii]”.

Unwilling to hear?

Yesterday, I joined a team of bridge-building educators in a conversation with Muslim teenagers.  The boys were asked how they were feeling about the demonstrations, I think with an expectation that they would focus on the events of Saturday. Yet, in a quiet and dignified way, some expressed a deep anger and sadness about the film and the desecration of their Prophet. For them it was about the film. On reflection, I think I had a limited willingness to talk about the film and how it felt for young Muslims.  It seems to me that one barrier to understanding what is going on is this resistance to acknowledging how some Muslims feel about the film, preferring to focus exclusively on the demonstration or the real concerns about how the actions of a few people tarnished the image of all Muslims.

Repairing relationships in stages

Apart from Police matters, the first step after the violence on Saturday was to separate the violent few from the vast number of people being tarred with the same brush. Muslim leaders have been rightly concerned with the repercussions, as I write there is a threat of a violent counter demonstration being planned against Muslims in Melbourne tomorrow. The next step that some Muslim leaders are beginning to turn their attention to is the long term relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.

I draw some inspiration for this inter-communal work from some teachings about the relationship between the Jews and God. The Torah states:
“My fury will rage against them on that day (because of their sins), and I will abandon them and hide My face from them, and they will be consumed, and many evils and troubles will befall them, and they will say on that day, 'Is it not because our God is no longer among us, that these evils have befallen us?' And I will hide My face on that day, because of all the evil they have committed, when they turned to other deities.[viii]”
It is puzzling that God would still be hiding his face after the people have come to the realisation that something is wrong by saying “, 'Is it not because our God is no longer among us”. Yet, this could be interpreted as a complaint about being a victim of God’s rejection or hostility from other communities, perhaps even unfairly, rather than acceptance of responsibility for the part people in our own community play in driving people apart[ix]. In both cases, between people and God and between communities there can be a focus on the consequences and symptoms of damaged relationship, rather than the causes at the core of the relationship itself [x]. It is to this great task that we must now turn. Each of us taking responsibility for what we can do to ensure we all learn to respect each other as neighbours, fellow citizens, and as siblings: the children of Adam and Eve.  

---

[i] Deuteronomy 29:18

[ii] Akedat Yitzchak, cited in Nehama Leibovitz, Studies in Devarim

[iii] as we don’t listen to the radio or use the computer etc. on the Sabbath

[iv] He wrote, "See I was angry, horrified, filled with rage like many of you out there with the film made against our beloved Prophet (pbuh). The anger was just fuelling the flame and confirming the theories of the non-Muslims, but then I came across this video this brother made... It filled my eyes with tears at the greatness of our Prophet, the kindness of our Prophet, the mercy of our Prophet...He told this story as follows, and my anger just melted away...

He (Muhammad) was a man of truth and a man of justice. A man of humility yet a man of toughness. A man of mercy... Just look at the city of Ta'if, he was pelted and stoned as he preached alone, heartbroken and alone, he had bruised bones and blood soaked shoes, yet he just moved on and prayed to his Lord, "Oh Lord! As long as you're pleased with me, it doesn't matter at all", until the angel Gabriel descended and said to the Prophet, "Give me one word! And I'll flip these homes" and listen to what the Prophet said, he said, "No! Just hold on... Despite everything they did to me, I'm gonna let it go, for the land may one day breed some sweet believing souls..."

[v] Kings I, 18:27

[vi] Haketav Vahakabbalah, cited in Nehama Leibovitz, Studies in Devarim

[vii] Aly, W, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-incredible-muslim-hulk-proves-to-be-no-friend-of-islam-either-20120916-260e8.html#ixzz274NJae00

[viii] Deuteronomy 31:17&18

[ix] Ohr Hachayim,

[x] Ramban, he states, saying: “because God is not with me” is not a complete confession, it is (an initial) thought and regret… and recognition of guilt. See Nachshoni’s adaptation of this.

Enemies

Tyrant Turned to Toy  by Divine Power

When I first started out as a Rabbi, I did a lesson for young adults in which I talked about the greatness of God expressed in punishment of the wicked. A participant challenged me; why would we aspire to that instead of just wishing for peace for all. Good point, I thought.


Since then, I have been moved by the way some Christians seek to love their enemies. I see that idea as radical, visionary and subversive; not accepting the dynamic of conflict and hate but rather insisting on a spiritual approach grounded in love. This is not a comparison between Judaism and Christianity or their histories, I am well aware of the blood shed by Christian crusaders. I also think the fact that Jews were powerless for 2000 years is a factor. This is an honest exploration of my own tradition and familiar stories to discover ideas about the response to enemies I had not noticed before. I have discovered some legalistic elements, but most exciting was a radical and subversive aspect to what could seem to be callous harshness.

Playing with enemies?!

According to one traditional translation[1], we have a seemingly scary idea about enemies. God tells Moses that in the future, “you will tell into the ears of your son and your son's son how I played with the Egyptians[2]”. Putting aside other translations that reject the meaning of “played with” instead rendering the Hebrew word הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי, as “my actions[3]”, can it be right that God has fun punishing people?! A sloppy translation of another verse would seem to support this idea, “just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do good for you and to increase you, so will the Lord rejoice over you to annihilate you and to destroy you[4]”.  The Talmud argues convincingly that the meaning here is not that God will rejoice over annihilation but rather will cause others to rejoice[5] in the destruction of the Jews. The Talmud categorically states that God does not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked[6].

Non-Fun-Play

The meaning of God’s play with the Egyptian tyrants is about subversion of power rather than fun. The verse about Kings and Nation, “He Who dwells in Heaven laughs; the Lord mocks them[7]”, is explained as “a metaphor for mockery about something that is not considered anything[8]”. The tyrants with their exaggerated self-importance and trappings of power can seem invincible. Yet, the Jew, threatened, beaten, ridiculed and humiliated can take comfort that the Pharaoh in his/her own day may yet prove to be a plaything of God, like Saddam or Muammar in our recent times.

Funny Honda Boss

Here is a personal anecdote that is an illustration of the subversive power of humour.
As a Yeshiva student, I was sitting in the library late one night with a book while some of my fellow student has broken the lock to the kitchen and were frying shnitzels when they should have been in bed. The head of the Yeshiva, a bit of an absent-minded professor type, came screaming up the street in his orange Honda, vrrroommmrrmrmm.  He throws the door open to the building and screams at the top of his lungs, “Ahh Chutzpehhhhh!” All the guilty young scholars are by now safely in their beds, their lights out, while the Shnitzels continue to fry as if being cooked by ghosts. The authority figure- my Yeshiva head, runs up and down the stairs through the building like a ball in one of those old pinball machines. He finds no one, until he discovers me in the library. He gave me what sounded like a very harsh long angry lecture about how I was destroying the whole school. I put on a very sad puppy-dog face, nodded my head and was not in the least bit offended by the whole comic spectacle.

Does punishment upset God?

The mystics state that when we talk of divine emotions, these are not to be understood in human terms[9] at all and are essentially metaphoric. In this vain, one commentator understands the verse relating to rejoicing about the destruction of the Jewish people as being a message that one should not  “think that God will be harmed, or will mourn” if he must punish us[10]. This is linked to the verse “If you are righteous, what do you give Him? Or what does He take from your hand?[11]”

Other sources suggest that God does care about the suffering of the wicked. In introducing the story of the splitting of the red sea[12], in which the Israelites were saved while the Egyptians perished, the word Vayehi  וַיְהִי (literally “and it was”, but linked to vai, or oy vay) is used which traditionally is used in situations of pain and sadness. This is attributed at least in part to the death of the Egyptians[13]. We are told that the angels wanted to sing praises to God for the miracles at the red sea. God exclaims, “the work of my hands are drowning in the sea and you will sing praises?![14]” Even, this is not simple, in another version of the same story God objects because he wants  the angels to wait until after the Israelites sing of their own salvation before the angels get their turn[15], but does not object to the singing itself at a time of great human suffering.  Yet, the view is better known among Jews is not the one in which God is concerned with the sequence of the praises, but his rejection of the content of the angels praise because of his care about the destruction of the wicked. This view is also reflected in at least one meaning behind the ritual of pouring out drops of wine at the Passover Seder in sympathy for the suffering of the Egyptians[16].

Other less pleasant approaches – all out war and legalism

It might make sense to stop while I am ahead, yet I think it would not be completely honest. Jewish responses to enemies also include less attractive options such as fighting them directly, and acting cleverly or even legalistically. I have little I can say about the take-no prisoners-wars against Amalek[17] and Canaan except that they challenge me.

Another approach is also difficult. The “clever”/legalistic option which is seen in the Jews either borrowing (or asking[18]) their Egyptian neighbours for “silver and gold objects and garments[19]”, just before they left Egypt and never returned. There is a strong attempt to make this technically Kosher. After the Jews left Egypt, Moses having told Pharaoh that they were going to the desert for three days[20], the Jews suddenly turn back toward Egypt[21] . This was because God “did not want the Jews to be liars, as you had said we will go for three days and will return and borrowed vessels…therefore you should turn around to stand on your faithfulness…” Perhaps conveniently, Pharaoh goes out to war against them and does not allow them to return so it will be his fault that they cannot go back or return what they borrowed [22]. Oh well.

Yet, there is a broader context here. In the Talmud, this act is justified as constituting a round about way of receiving the unpaid wages for the Jewish slaves[23]. There is surely a difference between being legalistic when one is in the right or when is in the wrong. The message for me in this is that there are times when things get messy, where broadly speaking one is morally entitled to fight, even in those situations it is important to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. I don’t think it is about legitimising legal fictions and legalistic arguments in cases where the broad moral balance is against the action one is taking.    

Conclusion

There is more to the sources than first meets the eye. While playing games with people is generally wrong, when God does it to a tyrant there could be a message of hope in it. Despite Judaism’s ultimate aspiration for universal peace, it is has a range of ideas about managing conflict until that time. One of these is the deep sadness of the loss of every human life, even if he is a soldier in the army of a wicked oppressor. Of course, using legalistic arguments to defend the indefensible is inexcusable, yet legalistic considerations have their place in the pursuit of justice, even the case of an unforgivable crime such as the slavery in Egypt. The letter of the law must be considered, even if one is in the clear according to its spirit. Some of this is uncomfortable for me, other aspects are inspiring, but this is what I have been able to find for now.  

---

[1] Rashi, Ramban, Chizkuni, translate הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי as meaning either played with or mockery, relating to a similar word to in Isaiah 3:4, the same understanding of the word is supported by MaHari Kra, Metzudat Tzion, and Metzudat David

[2] Exodus 10:2

[3] Targum Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel. Another alternative relating to pruning a vineyard is found in a manuscript of Lekach Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima parshat Bo, p3-4

[4] Deuteronomy 28:63

[5] Talmud Sanhedrin 39b, the spelling of the word relating to rejoice over the destruction  is spelled  יָשִׂישׂ  which means will cause others to rejoice, if it mean that God Himself would rejoice the spelling would have been with ו a instead of a י

[6] ibid

[7] Psalms 2:4

[8] Meiri commentary on the Psalms

[9] Tana Dbei Eliyahu

[10] Ibn Ezra commentary on Deuteronomy 28:63, this is so out of step with the Talmud Sanhedrin that Avi Ezer states that Ibn Ezra must have overlooked it

[11] Job 35:7

[12] Exodus 13:17

[13] Ohr Hachayim

[14] Talmud Megila 10b, and Sanhedrin 39b

[15] Shemot Rabba 23:8

[16] Rabbi Yitzchok Abarbanel in his Passover commentary Zevach Pesach, cited on http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/169,2202336/Why-do-we-pour-wine-out-of-the-cup-at-the-Seder.html

[17] Exodus 17, is where it first appears 

[18] The Hebrew word is וְשָׁאֲלָה which although it can mean borrow, it can also mean ask for an outright gift which is how it is understood by Rabbenu Bachaya and Rashbam, cited in Leibovitz, N, (1996) New Studies in Shemot, The Joint Authority for Jewish Zionist Education, Jerusalem, p.188

[19] Exodus

[20] Exodus 3:18

[21] Exodus 14:2-4

[22] Bchor Shor, Mosad Rav Kook edition, 2000, Jerusalem p.120

[23] Talmud Sanhedrin 91a

Public Servants - Accountability and Scorn – Wisconsin & Sinai Pekudei

Accountability is on the agenda. With an election looming in the Australian state of NSW, Australian school results displayed on the My School website, and out of Wisconsin a storm brewing over public servants. I am not across the details in the US situation, but it seems like Class-warfare organised by the party serving the interests of the “self-made” rich and of 'true American rugged individualism” against the union affiliated “other” of the public sector.  The public servant as an underpaid political punching bag is one ethical problem. As a public servant myself, in the sense that I work for a non-profit with substantial government funding, I can empathise with my colleagues. I also want to think about the obligations of the public servant. First among these is the principle of “you shall be clean in eyes of God and man[i]”.

Accountability meets some resistance from some people involved in public service. Teachers in the US for example thought it ridiculous that a principal should be able to decide on the basis of performance, who to retain and who to fire[ii]. I once suggested that Jewish schools have an external committee to oversee them. The wife of the head of a cluster of religious institutions that might be affected by my proposal, angrily asked me “would you like to have someone looking over your shoulder?!” Yes, I replied, I would be very happy to be held accountable for my level of performance against objectives that I had some say in formulating. Still regrettably, there is reluctance to adopt the highest standards of governance in some religious institutions.

Jewish sources point to both greater or lesser requirements for accountability. We have the example in a mishna of the priest entering the temple treasury who was forbidden to have a hem in his clothing so that no one would suspect that he stole anything[iii]. He was even required to have someone talk to him as he went in to ensure he could not put any coins in his mouth[iv]. Yet the concern in this Mishna seems to be less about ensuring honesty and more about removing suspicion. 'Lest he become poor and people will say that he became poor as punishment for stealing...lest he become rich and people will say that he became rich from the temple treasury'. This concern with suspecting the innocent is also expressed in the principle that “one who suspects the innocent, is punished with lashes on his body[v]”. Yet, the conclusion of the Mishna is the principle that a person must (be seen to be) fulfilling his obligations by the people just as one must fulfil his obligations by God.

We have two very different priorities here, maintaining a positive view of public servants and keeping them honest. In the code of Jewish law, this tension plays out in differentiating between someone who is deserving of public trust. In his/her case the community must not make calculations with the one in charge of charity ...because they do it in (good) faith[vi]. It is merely “good to for them to give an accounting, this is with the upright...if someone is not “Kosher”, or has been appointed through intimidation and strength, they must give an account”[vii].

The case of Moses, supports both perspectives. He saw fit to commission an audit of his spending of communal funds. “These are the accounts of the tabernacle (temporary desert temple), the tabernacle of testimony that was commissioned by Moses, the work of the Levites by the hand of Itamar the son of Aaron the Cohen”[viii]. One way of reading this text is that Moses initiated an Audit but had Itamar do the audit[ix]. Although Moses was a treasurer on his own he called others and calculated by their hand as it says, these are the calculations by the word of Moses, (that is) by the word of Moses (but) by the hand of Itamar”[x].

This reading is at odds with the understanding that the meaning of “by the hand of Itamar” is that he was the one managing the work[xi] and therefore responsible for the accounts that would be audited. Not only was the “Auditor” very close to the work itself, he was also the son of Aaron, the brother of Moses, the nephew of the person seeking the audit! It would seem to be a bit less than a fully independent Audit[xii]. This would be consistent with the view of accountability as a method of removing unjustified suspicion rather than addressing substantial concerns. While the collection of charity needed to be carried out by two people, even two brothers were allowed to collect it[xiii]. 

Perhaps also reflecting the conflicting considerations about accountability, we have the odd situation that while the silver is fully accounted for in terms of what it was used for[xiv], this is not the case with the gold[xv]. A range of explanations are given for this difference. The silver is detailed because at this point its use was complete, but some gold was still going to be used in the creation of the priestly garments[xvi]. Alternatively, the silver was contributed by all the Jews as a compulsory contribution, so an audit was needed, while the gold was given by wealthy generous people who did not care about an audit[xvii].  A third view is that the silver was easy to audit and also easy to become the subject of suspicion as it was used for only two things and both were visible, while the gold was spread among many objects[xviii]. All of these approaches are plausible if we see the audit as managing perceptions about people we have chosen to trust rather than  keeping people honest.

It is also significant that according to some view the Audit was undertaken in response to the rumour mill. Moses heard the Jews talking about him behind his back... they were saying “look at his neck, look at his thighs, (how fat they are), he eats from the Jews, he drinks from the Jews” and his friend replies, “the man that controlled the work of the tabernacle, you don't think he will be rich? When Moses heard this he said, “by your life, when the tabernacle is finished I will make a calculation with you.[xix]

In the process of the Audit, there appeared to be a discrepancy between the income and expenses in relation to the silver. Moses is relieved and elated when the forgotten 1775 shekel are discovered, having been used for to make the silver hooks on the pillars [xx]. “immediately,  Moses gave 15 praises to the Holy One Blessed Be He, these are in Yishtabach (the morning prayer), song, praise etc. corresponding to these are 15 times the word “Blessed” in Baruch She-amar (also in the morning prayer) and 15 Vavs in Emet Vyatziv, true, and upright[xxi]...The word Vav in hebrew is the name of a letter that means “and” when used as a prefix but also means  hook, the discovered missing item that enabled the accounts to be reconciled.  

Those of us who are privileged to serve the public, deserve fair reward for our efforts not scorn and innuendo, equally we must do our part to earn and keep the trust of the people we serve.   

---

[i]     Numbers 32:22, this principal is also applied to the handing out of jobs. Moses tells the Jews, see God called, by name, Betzalel (to be chief architect and designer of the tabernacle)…when Moses came down he told the Jews, this is what God told me…they asked and who will do all this? They started to find fault with Moses and said, God did not tell Moses to make the Tabernacle through Betzalel, but Moses himself appointed him because he is his relative, Moses; a king, Aaron his brother, high priest, his sons, vice Cohanim, Elezar the prince of the tribe of Levi, the sons of Kehot (the clan or extended family that Moses was part of), carry the tabernacle (eg. It’s holiest objects) and (now) this one, controls the work of the Tabernacle…Moses said I have done nothing from my own mind, only God has told me, and he shows them, see God has called by name, Betzalel (tanchuma, cited in Studies in Shemot, Exodus, Nehama Leibowitz)

[ii]    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2053510,00.html, Joe Klein in Time magazine,24/2/11 “New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been trying to negotiate a deal whereby layoffs, if necessary, would not be made on a last-hired, first-fired basis. "So you'd rather have them lay off the more experienced teachers?" a Wisconsin teacher asked me. No: teachers should be hired and fired and paid according to their ability. "But who judges that?" the teacher asked. Their employers do, I replied. The teacher scoffed; the idea that school principals should be able to decide who should be part of their workforce seems incomprehensible to most teachers — and yet that sort of accountability is at the heart of any system that aspires to excellence.”

[iii]  Talmud Shekalim, (mishna) 8a, similar laws in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, laws of Tzedakah, 257:1

[iv]   Talmud Shekalim 9a

[v]    Talmud Shabbat 97a, Yoma 19b

[vi]   Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah. 257:2

[vii]  Rema comment on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, based on the Tur

[viii]          Exodus 38:21

[ix]   Nachshoni, Y,  (1988), Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Sh'mos, Artscroll, p. 607, based on the Midrash that follows.

[x]    Shemot Rabba 51:1,

[xi]   Rashi on Exodus 38:21, “By the hand of Itamar”, he was the one who was appointed over them to give to each family the work that was for them.

[xii]  Although one meaning of the Mishkan of Testimony is that God testified that all was in order with the accounts, which is the best clean audit one can get.

[xiii]          Tur Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah laws of Tzedoka 256

[xiv] Exodus 38:27-28

[xv]  The text dealing with the audit of the gold (38:24), tells us the amount collected but gives no details about what it was used for. Rashi and Rashbam, assert that the gold was audited, but give no explanation for the absence of detail. 

[xvi] Klei Yakar on Exodus 34:1

[xvii]         Rabbi Yonoson Eybshutz, cited in Nachshoni, Y (1988), Studies in the weekly Parsha, Sh'mos, Artscroll, Brooklyn, p.  606

[xviii]        Lvush HaOrah,

[xix] Old Tanchuma 4, cited in Torah Shlaima, Vol 23. p.55

[xx]  Tanchuma 7

[xxi] Daat Zekainim Ubaalei Hatosafot on Exodus 38:21